Now in this I believe he is correct. Economic value is not total utility to an individual, nor marginal utility to an individual, nor is it a mere ratio of exchange. The two conceptions, ratio of exchange and ophelimity, are to be sharply distinguished, power in exchange is ruled out as a vague and confused conception, and value as an objective quantity does not appear at all. For him there is no social validity in value except as a ratio of exchange. The same may be said for B hm-Bawerk so far as his formal analysis goes.
Price is that other quantity of goods.
But the laws of these two coincide. So far as the law of price explains that a good actually obtains such and such a price, and why it obtains it, it affords at the same time the explanation that the good is capable, and why it is capable, of obtaining a definite price. The law of Price, in fact, contains the law of Exchange Value. The Austrian analysis, even with Professor Clark's correction, is simply an explanation of the modus operandi of the determination of particular ratios in the market. It tells us nothing of quantitative values, and, in fact, assumes a whole system of values already predetermined, before the question of any particular price can be approached.