Hi Ajit:
Thanks for your reply in #4516:
I have some questions and comments for you:
Ajit: (snip)
> However, Fred was nice enough to send me his draft of the paper on
> transformation problem, which later came out in the book he edited. I have
> read that paper and nothing more. In that paper he is following the new
> solution.
Alejandro:
This is interesting. Do you have also the printed version? In the
version you have, is there the passage I quoted in my initial post?
What is your interpretation of this passage?
Ajit: (snip)
> How in the world can Fred "surely,
> solve definitely the problem"? Fred got to be GOD to do so! First of all,
> one will have to defer to Fred for the perfect and all encompassing
> understanding of the new solution. Have you ever thought that Fred might
> not have understood the new solution very well. Is that a possibility?
> Secondly, what makes you think that Freds interpretation of his own paper
> has to be definitive.
Alejandro:
I think I way to overcome the problems you are raising ("Fred is not
God", "It is possible that Fred does not understand the New
Solution") is to work out the following numerical example:
9/15 4/15 2/15 0 125
A = 0 0 0 B = 1/4 X = 125
0 0 0 0 125
L = 1.2 1.6 1.2
A 3-depts. economy ("iron", "corn" and "gold") in stationary (simple
reproduction) state.
A: the matrix of "iron" inputs per unit of output,
B: the vector of real wage ("corn") per unit of living-labor,
L: the vector of living-labor per unit of output and
X: total output.
Let us assumte that "money" is "gold".
My questions are: According to your studies, what would be the
numerical results given (a) by Fred and (b) by the New Solution for
the following magnitudes:
1. The vector of labor-values and money-values
2. The vector of labor-production prices and money-production prices
3. The rate of profit
4. The rate of surplus value
This could be an easy way to know if there are (or not) differences
between Fred and the New Solution: When Fred comes back he surely (in
this case I really think **surely**) can tell us if he agree (or not)
with the calculations. Perhaps he changed his mind since he sent you
the paper, as you suggest.
I also would appreciate very much if you give your own results for
these numbers as a way "to expand" the debate to other topics.
Another point:
Could you kindly send me a copy of your paper on Research on
Political Economy? As I told Paul Zarembka, unfortunately this
publication is not available here in Bolivia. (Paul also told me that
is very expensive and my income is very low!) My mailing address is:
Alejandro Ramos M.
Casilla 13985
La Paz, BOLIVIA
Alejandro Ramos