Michael Nuwer's reproduction of Joan Robinson's quote is particularly 
helpful.  It once again shows the value of often going to the primary 
sources rather than relying on paraphrases int he secondary literature, 
even when these may appear to be "pithy and on target."

First, the quote shows how poorly Joan Robinson understood the classical 
theory of value and her failure to appreciate that Alfred Marshall was 
restating what the classics had taught.  Robinson's second chapter in 
her _Economic Philosophy_ where she disputes Smith's meaning by "value 
in exchange" as price and "value in use" as "usefulness" or utility 
illustrates my first observation, and her third chapter dealing with 
Marshall does the second.

Secondly, it is incorrect to interpret Ricardo's quest to discover the 
laws that regulate the distribution of rent, interest, profit and wages 
(Preface to the _Principles_) as his having changed the question of 
political economy or economics back from one focus to another: relative 
price determination from supply and demand to the distribution of 
"output as a whole."  Indeed, the theories of wages, interest, and the 
price level are best explained as applications of the classical theory 
of value (price).  Had Keynes and Robinson appreciated that, they would 
not have had so much trouble recognizing Marshall's restatement of the 
classical theory of interest as the application of value (price) theory 
to "capital" or savings, what Robertson called "loanable funds."  Do the 
same to money (currency) and you get the theory of the price level. 

We have so much useful stuff to recover from the classics by reading 
them carefully.

James Ahiakpor