Alan, I am not sure how the Keynes quote is relevant. I am not saying 
that Keynes was a jerk. My main point is that when macro principles' 
teachers teach Keynesian economics using AD-AS and IS-LM analysis, they 
systematically disregard profit in the broader sense of the term. By 
making various simplifying assumptions (either explicitly or 
implicitly), Keynesians rule out the kinds of market economy decisions 
which, if they were accounted for, would most likely lead to the 
conclusion that the Keynesian analysis is irrelevant to the task of 
trying to make policy that is, on balance, beneficial from a utilitarian 
standpoint..

Regarding the quote, Keynes seems to be writing about speculative profit 
on an asset that can be disposed of at any time. This kind of profit can 
have important macro effects, particularly in an economy with a flexible 
quantity of money. The increase in money (or the increase in demand for 
speculative money allowed by an increase in supply of money) leads to 
speculative bubbles, which can, in turn, lead to sudden changes in the 
distribution of wealth and to mis-allocations that producing 
entrepreneurs will try to correct. The current housing bubble in the 
U.S. is an example. But such bubbles are fundamentally monetary 
phenomena (either a consequence of mistakes made by a particular group 
creditors like house financiers or of mistakes made by creditors in 
general, as in the Asian financial crisis) Their effects cannot be dealt 
with effectively by means of the typical Keynesian tools after they have 
started..

Regarding Keynes himself, as I recall, he tended to pay too much 
attention to asset speculation and too little attention to the the 
speculation and actual undertakings of producing entrepreneurs. 
Production cannot occur unless resources are bought, a specified period 
of time passes, and the product is sold. And the production of the 
typical good bought by consumers entails production of resources by 
numerous entrepreneurs at different positions along the supply chains, 
which were accounted for by most of the early neo-classicals, and 
especially by the Austrians like Menger, Bohm Bawerk and Hayek. My claim 
is that the Keynesians ignore the profit calculations of these. Those 
who followed Keynes tended to ignore these supply chains and the time 
structure of production. And, as I have tried to argue, they tended to 
ignore the profit associated with these.

Have I misunderstood the reason for your quote?

Pat Gunning