Dennis P, It may well be true that it does not repay the effort in your estimation to work through my posts given the opaquenss of my writing style and the jargon which I use. That is fair enough, but then why not ignore me? If you are going to declare that what I have written mystifies you, then tell me where I have lost you. I took some time to write two short posts laying out one of the problems that Marx tried to solve with his theory of labor value. Now they may have been a terrible posts; they may provide no help if you ever try to work through Capital 3, chapter 9. That's fine; there are much more gifted expositors than I. I provided citations where a better description of the problem could indeed be found.
So I still don't see what your problem is. Given the standards of simplicity which you have set, it's seems that you could never get through Marx's Capital (you'll have to be satisfied with Wheen's biography). Which is fine, but for those have made an effort to understand it, why attack them as they attempt to work through interpretations and criticisms?
Maybe you are saying that we don't need any deep understanding or theory of the nature of the social system in which we live. This (I would argue) is an untenable position.
I know that you imagine yourself to be--compared to me--a Great Communicator to the unwashed masses. I am glad that you have this going for you. I wish I could be as successful a teacher as you doubtless are, but I have only spent one year teaching literacy at night and two years teaching at a high school for--let's say--not priviliged kids.
But I'll try to learn something from your vulgar and frantic writing style.
Rakesh