> >From this perspective, the idea of converting value
> into price is completely superfluous, since value is
> not some tangible entity, but rather an analytical
> category existing at an *extremely* high level of
> abstraction from actually-existing empirical reality.
>
>
Then I wonder how you square this interpretation with the notion that there exists a meaningful "law of value"? If you can't convert value into price, how would you state the law of value, in layman's terms?
SA