A note of clarification: On 14 May 1995 (Pen-L:5081) 16:58:54.85, Paul Cockshott reported some statisitcal results and, interpreting them, referred to "the New Soln [New Solution] of the transformation problem is that advocated by Kliman ..." I, Kliman, am NOT an advocate of what is *generally* called the "new solution" to the "transformation problem," i.e. the interpretation of Dumenil, Lipietz, Foley, etc. I have been arguing for several years (in print, since 1988 _Capital & Class 35, "The transformation non-problem and the transformation non-transformation problem," [with Ted McGlone]) that Marx's OWN account of the transformation is indeed logically consistent and appropriate to his purpose. The so-called "new solution" diverges from Marx in important respects. In particular, the rate of profit is not Marx's s/(c+v). I also believe it is misleading to view my work as advocating ANY sort of "solution" to the "transformation problem." Since I think there is no "problem" with Marx's own account, there is nothing to be "solved" by us moderns here. Andrew Kliman
