I have seen no criticisms of this so far how would you respond to this

Keynes defined P to be expected economic profit.The second line from
the bottom of this footnote reads as " = delta P ", which is the same
as" = dP".That should actually be " = delta P w subscript" due to
either (a) a typographical error made by the printer in the GT or (b)
because Keynes felt that it was obvious,since he divided D=Z through by
w,to get Dw subscript = Zw subscript,which means that you must divide P
by w.P is AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF WAGE UNITS.Pw subscript is
equal to Dw subscript-N.Thus dP(or dPw subscript)=d(Dw subscript - N)
=dDw subscript -dN.Simple integration gives the following result- Pw
subscript=Dw subscript-N .Divide through by w and you obtain P=D-wN.Add
wN to both sides.You get P+wN=D=pO or Z =D.Z=P+wN.w is the money wage.N
is aggregate employment.p is the expected price level.O is real
output,which is a function of N.D,the expected aggregate demand
function,is thus equal to expected total revenue.Z,the expected
aggregate supply function,is equal to total variable cost plus expected
economic profit.

The same analysis and result is contained in
footnote 2 on pp.55-56 of the GT.Keynes defines the derivative dZw
subscript/dN=dphi(N)/dN =phi'(N)=1,where you use "d" instead of " delta
" notation used by Keynes.Integrate to obtain Z=wN + C,where C is a
constant of integration,after you divide through by w.We know that D=Z
by definition and that D=pO from chapter 20.We get wN +C=pO or C=pO-wN
once we subtract wN from both sides.By definition,C must be equal to
actual profit if p is an actual price and expected profit if p is an
expected price.Of course,if P=0,then you get Z=wN= total variable
cost.(This is the case of constant returns to labor.Note that Keynes
covered this case explicitly at the top of p.284, as well as on p.306
of the GT ,in chapter 21.)This,of course is the mistake that Don
Patinkin made continuously from 1976-1989 in 3 books and 5
articles-failing to consider that Z is linear in both the diminishing
returns and constant returns to labor cases.Of course,in the case of
constant returns to labor,you would get a linear 45 degree cross
representing the aggregate supply curve.The same mistake is made by all
Post Keynesian economists like Sydney Weintraub, Paul Davidson,Douglas
Vickers,Jan Kregel, Victoria Chick,Nevile,Skott and Dutt,etc.They fail
to consider that Keynes worked with both cases, diminishing returns to
labor as well as constant returns to labor,in his microeconomic
analysis contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT.It is not surprising
that the Post Keynesians can not deal with the technical analysis
contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT and expressed by Keynes in
the form of elasticities.Instead,they build their analysis on the
claims of a mathematically illiterate economist named Dennis
Robertson.It was Robertson who claimed that Keynes's theory of
effective demand(D-Z analysis)was contained in chapter 3 of the GT.All
Post Keynesians base their work on the assumption that Robertson was
correct.Post Keynesians also confuse the D=Z locus,the aggregate supply
curve,with Z,the aggregate supply function.All of these errors can be
traced back to the original errors made by Dennis Robertson in
correspondence with Keynes in Feb.-Mar.,1935 about the first 17
chapters of the GT.Keynes told Robertson very clearly that the anaysis
of his D-Z model was in a chapter called the Employment
Function.Chapter 20 of the GT is titled," The Employment Function
".After seventy years it is time for economists to read this chapter
upon which KEYNES SAID EVERYTHING DEPENDS.

I have seen no criticisms of this so far how would you respond to this

Keynes defined P to be expected economic profit.The second line from
the bottom of this footnote reads as " = delta P ", which is the same
as" = dP".That should actually be " = delta P w subscript" due to
either (a) a typographical error made by the printer in the GT or (b)
because Keynes felt that it was obvious,since he divided D=Z through by
w,to get Dw subscript = Zw subscript,which means that you must divide P
by w.P is AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF WAGE UNITS.Pw subscript is
equal to Dw subscript-N.Thus dP(or dPw subscript)=d(Dw subscript - N)
=dDw subscript -dN.Simple integration gives the following result- Pw
subscript=Dw subscript-N .Divide through by w and you obtain P=D-wN.Add
wN to both sides.You get P+wN=D=pO or Z =D.Z=P+wN.w is the money wage.N
is aggregate employment.p is the expected price level.O is real
output,which is a function of N.D,the expected aggregate demand
function,is thus equal to expected total revenue.Z,the expected
aggregate supply function,is equal to total variable cost plus expected
economic profit.

The same analysis and result is contained in
footnote 2 on pp.55-56 of the GT.Keynes defines the derivative dZw
subscript/dN=dphi(N)/dN =phi'(N)=1,where you use "d" instead of " delta
" notation used by Keynes.Integrate to obtain Z=wN + C,where C is a
constant of integration,after you divide through by w.We know that D=Z
by definition and that D=pO from chapter 20.We get wN +C=pO or C=pO-wN
once we subtract wN from both sides.By definition,C must be equal to
actual profit if p is an actual price and expected profit if p is an
expected price.Of course,if P=0,then you get Z=wN= total variable
cost.(This is the case of constant returns to labor.Note that Keynes
covered this case explicitly at the top of p.284, as well as on p.306
of the GT ,in chapter 21.)This,of course is the mistake that Don
Patinkin made continuously from 1976-1989 in 3 books and 5
articles-failing to consider that Z is linear in both the diminishing
returns and constant returns to labor cases.Of course,in the case of
constant returns to labor,you would get a linear 45 degree cross
representing the aggregate supply curve.The same mistake is made by all
Post Keynesian economists like Sydney Weintraub, Paul Davidson,Douglas
Vickers,Jan Kregel, Victoria Chick,Nevile,Skott and Dutt,etc.They fail
to consider that Keynes worked with both cases, diminishing returns to
labor as well as constant returns to labor,in his microeconomic
analysis contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT.It is not surprising
that the Post Keynesians can not deal with the technical analysis
contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT and expressed by Keynes in
the form of elasticities.Instead,they build their analysis on the
claims of a mathematically illiterate economist named Dennis
Robertson.It was Robertson who claimed that Keynes's theory of
effective demand(D-Z analysis)was contained in chapter 3 of the GT.All
Post Keynesians base their work on the assumption that Robertson was
correct.Post Keynesians also confuse the D=Z locus,the aggregate supply
curve,with Z,the aggregate supply function.All of these errors can be
traced back to the original errors made by Dennis Robertson in
correspondence with Keynes in Feb.-Mar.,1935 about the first 17
chapters of the GT.Keynes told Robertson very clearly that the anaysis
of his D-Z model was in a chapter called the Employment
Function.Chapter 20 of the GT is titled," The Employment Function
".After seventy years it is time for economists to read this chapter
upon which KEYNES SAID EVERYTHING DEPENDS.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and no one can understand what you're trying to say.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is
essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular
object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

I don't think Keynes even knew what he was saying.

Not everybody here has a PhD in Economics. If you could explain what the hell this passage means and how it is relevant to anything, then maybe people would have an easier time responding to you.

typical never read the general theory and are mathematically illiterate.

Explain this without the maths, or admit it's garbage that cannot be put into plain language and is cloaked in formal language for obscurantist purposes - there's lots of maths students/grads on here, so please keep the denigrating nonsense to yourself, no one cares and you only make yourself look like a twat. Alternatively, go away.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

It's about Keynes aggregate supply function,there are no mysteries about Keynes's aggregate supply
function unless you do not know how to differentiate and integrate
basic ,simple functions.Anyone who has this basic skill can simply go
to the footnote(Footnote 2) on pp.55-56 and integrate the
derivative.Presto ! It will be found that Z=wN +P,where w is a
constant,short run money wage,N is aggregate employment ,and P is
expected profit.This ,of course,means that there is just not one
aggregate supply function,as claimed by the Post Keynesians and
Cambridge Keynesians ,but many, a different expected aggregate supply
function for every different level of expected profits, P.One can also
go to p.283 of the GT and integrate any of the mathematical expressions
derived by Keynes.Again,Presto,one will arrive at the same answer,Z=wN
+ P.An alert reader will soon realize that Keynes took the standard
TR-TC= P(profit) model,where TR=total revenue equals pO and TC equals
total cost equals wN,so that P = pO-wN, and simply added wN to both
sides.One obtains wN+P=pO,where O= f(N)is an aggregate production
function that Keynes derived based on the assumption that a unit had
been defined with which to measure aggregate output (p.283;GT) and p is
an expected price.pO =D is the expected aggregate demand function.These
functions define a number of different potential equilibria,D=Z,only
one of which can be the actual outcome.Keynes called the locus of the
set of all possible outcomes the aggregate supply CURVE,if N is
designated as the independent variable and placed on the abscissa and D
and Z on the ordinate,or the employment function if N is defined on the
ordinate and D and Z are defined as the independent varibles and placed
on the abscissa.Only in the minds of mathematically illiterate
economists like Paul Davidson,Sydney Weintraub,G C Harcourt, and J E
King is the explicitly defined Z function " mysterious and i have read hazlitt and he clearly couldn't pass a calculus course.

typical never read the general theory and are mathematically illiterate.

I bet you didn't know that: XP_nH+P(Price of consumption goods on monday)(aggregated of course)=ICnX REMEMBER IT DEPENDS ON J(jelly beans).

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is
essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular
object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

In your original post you argue that post Keynesian analysis stems from an error made by a man by Dennis Roberton. What does this have to do with Austrian economics?

Anyone who has studied economics knows the derivation of the Aggregate Supply curve. For a critique of Keynesianism and Hicksian IS-LM analysis, etc., see chapter 18 of Reisman's Capitalism.

Robertson's mathematical skills were on a par with those of Henry
Hazlitt.Both of them would be able to read books that were at the 6th
grade pre-algebra level.Keynes wrote the introduction to his D-Z model
,of his theory of effective demand in chapter 3 of the GT, at the
pre-algebra level so that the vast majority of 1930's economists would
be able to follow what he was doing.Keynes told Robertson point blank
that it was a later chapter, titled The Employment Function,that
contained his formal,mathematical, technical analysis.This chapter,of
course,is chapter 20 of the GT.Robertson could not read this chapter
because he was ignorant of calculus.In his original 1955 contribution
to the Economic Journal's 1954-56 exchange over the aggregate supply
function with Hawtreu and De Jong ,he had to ask Harry Johnson to write
a mathematical appendix showing what the functional relationships were
in chapter 3 of the GT.Johnson got it wrong right out of the starting
gate when he accepted Robertson's claim that Z,the aggregate supply
function,equaled pO,where p is the price level and O is output,which is
a function of N,total employment.In fact ,it is D=pO,where D is the
expected aggregate demand function, and not Z=pO.It is easily proven
through simple integration,both in footnote 2 on pp.55-56 and footnotes
1 and 2 on p.283 of the GT,that Z=wN + P,where w is a fixed,short run
money wage,and P is expected economic profit.The latest Cambridge
followers of the D Robertson approach are Mark Hayes and Gerhard
Michael Ambrosi.It looks like it is going to take a Field prize winner
to demonstrate to economists how to do simple integration.

typical never read the general theory and are mathematically illiterate.

Typical, you don't know anything about economics, and it doesn’t even prove you are mathematically literate. There is nothing in the General Theory that is beyond High school math.Nearly every equation in the General Theory bears absolutely no meaningful relationship to reality.

Keynes was either the biggest fool there was, or the biggest practical joker.