1. Roger seems to have most perceptively explained how the labor-labor power distinction allows Marx to circumvent the endless regression (or circularity) in most price theories.
2. Angela has shown us how to read the blankness in the (non-) specification of the means of subsistence in value or physical terms while probing the silences imposed in what have been called peanut theories of value.
3. Fabian has reminded us of how controversial the treatment of the value of labor power has been in the controversy over the so called transformation problems. The new solution (Foley-Lipietz-Dumenil), the temporal single system (Freeman-Carchedi, Kliman), and the monetary macro interpretation (Moseley) all treat the value of labor power differently. The debates between them have often been as sharp as that between these Marxists and the neo Ricardians--as Fabian can explain in detail, I am sure. I cannot do a careful study of these positions at this point; after reading contributions from each perspective, I must say that I find attractive elements in each! So I'll have to iron out that eclecticism at some point!
4. At this point, I would like to note the problem of the dynamics of the determination of the value of labor power treated in what I consider one of the most important contributions in Marxist theory in recent decades--Paolo Giusanni's essay on the value of labor power in the International Journal of Political Economy in 1991 (I believe). Don't have the exact cite with me; if anyone's interested, feel free to email me.
By the way, there is a rather stimulating critique of the Sraffian interpretation of Ricardo by the ex Stalinist Mark Blaug in the latest History of Political Economy.
Thanks all for the insightful comments, Rakesh
ps working on something else rather dismal today!