A couple of quick responses:
1. I argued that the replacement cost of the means of
production acquires some relevance to the capitalists'
calculations provided that the inter-sectoral mobility of
capital is less than perfect. Andrew hasn't disputed this.
Do I take it that he's willing to stake his argument on
perfect mobility?
2. Andrew responds that the numbers I said were "odd" in his
transformation tableaux don't strike _him_ as odd, and
anyway that "oddness" is not a criterion of anything. Well
(as Gerry has suggested), my use of the word "odd" was a
polite understatement. The numbers are (unwittingly, I
suppose) "rigged": a particular pattern of arbitrary
variation in accumulation ratios is required, in order to
ensure simple reproduction given the particular pattern of
price changes from table to table -- and just that pattern
is assumed. Given Andrew's general insistence that
accumulation or expansion of value is all that matters to
capitalists, one might have supposed that he wouldn't be
indifferent to the observation that his sectors show
markedly different rates of expansion of value.
Allin Cottrell