The two concepts which are the lynchpins of understanding arguments about the economy, especially those revolving around the monetary policy, are:
1) relative value
2) the determination of the optimal amount of dollars to be circulating within the market.
The only thing I remember from my college economics class was the first one. That, and the look of anguish which would come over the faces of my fellow students every time I raised my hand. Anyway, the basic form of a transaction which sets the price of an item or action is the relative valuation of a dollar to an item or action (item, for short) by two parties. The valuation of a dollar in possession of the purchaser relative to the value of the item possessed by the seller is, to the purchaser, less than the value of the item to the purchaser; and the value of a dollar in possession of the purchaser is, to the seller, greater than the value of the item to the seller. We see from this that neither the item nor the dollar has an objective value determined by the price, but that the price is determined by the relative value of each to both parties.
As for the second, I believe the easiest way to understand it is to see this as the basic formula applicable at all times in U.S. history and probably a generally valid proposition across a great range of hypothetical and actual case studies: capital sets the prices and the wages.
Of course the objection will arise immediately "No! You just admitted that prices are agreed upon by the buyer and seller! So are wages!" The problem with that is that this is true only after the number of dollars in circulation has been determined as being optimal for the purposes of investing capital. As Marx explained, labor is not capital- it forms part of capital. That is, I cannot view my labor as capital; I can (as "free labor") excercise some individual discretion in developing my labor capacities (a relative ability in various ways) and where I consent to have my labor exploited. But, the relation of wages to prices is determined by the seller of items (objects, and the actions which produce them are added to the price to the consumer/worker).
Now, a more objective way of stating this is possible. Perhaps case studies of actual "growth economies" are offered; perhaps it is posited that the notion of valuation can be constructed in such a way as to envision a global "growth economy" of some sort. Growth or no growth, shared or otherwise, the determination of #2 above is set in relation to a comprehensive assessment of the set of all transactions of the type described in #1 above (via delegated authority discounting the possibility of direct dictatorial administration of this measure), over time.