Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks, Marc and Rei....you got my point....the inflation rate is less accurate than going by prices of things that normal folks buy... that's why I chose a mid-income job/family sedan to use as reference. A modest family home in the 'burbs would be another good reference, but WHAT 'burbs? !!!! Walt On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:41:54 -0400 (EDT) Rei Shinozuka <shino@ubspainewebber.com> wrote: > > there's an inflation calculator at > > http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateGDP.html > > according to this, the $288 in 1954 is $1,586.42 in 2001 dollars. > > but if you must measure by chevies, the 1954 chevy corvette convertible > was $3,498 and the 2002 chevy corvette convertible is $47,530. if the leica > were to remain at 8.233% of the price of the vette, it would now cost > $3,913.14. > > -rei > > > > From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> > > > > In 1954, a new Chevy, if you could have found one, would have been around > > $1,000. A Leica M3 body had a list price of $288 -- and that list price > > was far more rigidly policed then than now. So, a Leica body cost you > > around 30% the price of a new car. The Leica has fallen substantially in > > relative cost, unless there are some $7,500 new cars around I've missed > > hearing about. > > > > Marc > > > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > > Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html