":: You said modern economics encompasses heterodox views, however in the opening modern economics is linked directly in the same sentence to the idea that value is derived from marginal utility (as opposed to labor).  That sentence, linking the word modern to that value theory, is what seems POV, not the phrase modern economics if ""modern economics"" also includes those theories that embrace the LTV (labor theory of value).  But the sentence that was in the article doesn't.

 You are correct that there was a citation, one reason I did not mention it is I had no access to what was cited so there was no reason to mention it, as what was said was illogical, cite or no cite.  With regards to what is being discussed - we can discuss what is POV and not POV, what belongs where and so forth, and compromise and whatnot, but this sentence was so illogical and so out of wack it seems to demand change.  I looked up the cite and now understand the problem.  Let us compare what was said in the old opening to the opening of what J.E. Roemer said in the cite.

 Old opening - Thus, in Marx’s labour theory of value, value is considered as a measure of labor exploitation,[1] rather than of price.

 The first sentence of the work cited - For Marx, the labour theory of value was not a theory of price, but a method for measuring the exploitation of labour.

 Roemer says that for Marx the labor theory of value is a method for measuring the exploitation of labour, and is not a theory of price.  Which may be correct or incorrect, which may be phrased well or phrased confusingly, but at least it makes sense as an argument.  Roemer does not say value is considered a measure of labor exploitation.  There is a big difference between ""labor theory of value...method"" and value itself.  Whether or not one agrees with Roemer, or thinks his sentence is well-written or not, he is not saying what he is cited in the article as saying.  

"