A reply to Fred's ope-l 3507, which responded to my ope-l 3476. I thank Fred
for taking the time to reply to my post.
Fred writes: "I argued in (3460) that there is an inconsistency in Andrew's
interpretation of constant capital: the FLOW of constant capital is measured
in current costs (and therefore is revalued as a result of technological
change), but the STOCK of constant capital is measured in historical costs
(and therefore is not revalued as a result of technological change).
"I argued that there is no textual evidenced to support this dual
interpretation of the determination of the stock and the flow of constant
capital, and that there is considerable to support the contrary
interpretation: that the flow of constant capital is derived from the stock
of constant capital, and that therefore both the flow and the stock of
constant capital are valued in the same way, and specifically that both are
valued in current costs (so that both are revalued as a result of
technological change)."