Please retract the claim that concludes this 'demonstration' of yours: 'Therefore, when account is taken of the unique feature of Marx’s theory – that labor is not only a cost but also a producer of value – my interpretation of Marx’s theory is clearly different from Sraffa’s theory.'

What you need to show is that your rate of profit need not equal 11.1% given the same physical data AND AN EQUALIZED RATE OF PROFIT. You will not succeed.

Further details are here: http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/…/Moseleys-PoP-are… "
Moseley's computations are here: http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/…/…/comment-page-1…

"At first, instead of conceding that I have demonstrated that his interpretation of Marx is physicalism in “macro-monetary” clothing, he began to demand demonstrations with more and more distinct sectors and kinds of goods. Once he realized that that wasn’t going to rescue his interpretation, he began to engage in the intellectual equivalent of throwing spaghetti against the wall in the hope that a strand or two will stick. And he’s still at it.

"Nothing has stuck, but after his latest reply to me (Moseley 2016b), the stain on the wall is even bigger, as is the mess of spaghetti on the floor. He has responded to me with ridiculous computations that he could have easily seen were wrong, if only he had plugged in his preferred physical outputs into the interactive spreadsheet file I provided along with Part 5 of this series of comments. Below, I’ll show that his computations are ridiculous.

"And he has responded by badgering me to reply to his argument regarding a fully-automated economy. He now claims that his argument 'shows very clearly the difference between my interpretation of Marx’s theory of the rate of profit and Sraffa’s theory' (Moseley 2016b). However, it’s just a bunch of unsubstantiated and poorly thought-out assertions that show nothing. Below, I respond to his argument by showing that his 'macro-monetary' rate of profit is quantitatively identical to the rate of profit of the (other) physicalist economists, even in the case of a fully-automated economy. In this case, too, the fact that he expresses his rate of profit as the ratio of surplus-value to capital value advanced, instead of as a ratio of physical coefficients, makes no difference. It is all value-form and no value-substance."

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/…/all-value-form-n…

Maxx Bartko, Alan Freeman, Rob Hoveman, Mick Brooks, Shannon Williams, David Koen, Brendan Cooney