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