In ope-l #4496, Ajit S. wrote:
> Fred follows the new solution.
Perhaps someone could call Fred by phone and give him this important
news! I am sure he didnt know that and will be very happy.
In any case this gives an important opportunity to all us: We can
discuss if Fred Moseley "follows the new solution" *before* he comes
back. I have no doubt that this will have an advantage over the
thread "Was Sraffa Marxist?" because at the end Fred will come and,
surely, solve definitely the problem posed, something unusual on this
list. (Unfortunately, it is impossible for the other thread to have a
similar ending, what we can call a "happy end".)
I am thinking that we have another advantage: I am sure that Duncan
--who is one of the FOUNDERS of the New Solution-- will tell us his
opinion about this. In particular, I am interested in knowing if the
DEFINITION OF VALUE given originally by the N.S. is the same
maintained by Fred.
In the meantime, we can start examining "textual evidence". For
example, it is worth to read Moseley Fred, "Marx's Logical Method
and the Transformation Problem", in Moseley F. (Ed.) "Marx's Method
in Capital. A Reexamination", Humanities Press, 1993, pp. 178-180.
There, Fred says:
Thus there is a methodological inconsistenciy in this
new solution in its treatment of constant capital and
variable capital. Variable capital is taken as given
in money terms, but constant capital is derived from
the physical quantities. Proponents of this view do
not provide a rationale for this inconsistent
treatment. I argue that since both constant capital
and variable capital are components of the total capital
invested by capitalists, these two componentes should
be treated in paralell fashion. (p. 179)
IMHO, this is NOT a minor difference between Fred and the New
Solution so, initially, I would give a negative answer to the
question. Moreover, I am guessing that Fred's **calculation of
values** differs significantly from that suggested by the New
Solution.
Alejandro Ramos