Something about your quote screams "maybe true in a perfectly efficient/functioning economy", but my gut says, maybe not always true when there are inefficiencies.
There are tangible and intangible costs and benefits to every pursuit (interesting example, externalities in economics). Focusing on only tangible benefits (money) does, to me, seem very common - rarely do I see intangibles being considered.
For example, how many times I see profitable companies making money hand over fist, but when you look at their operations internally, they are completely inefficient and chaotic, maybe even damaging. Like, if they did things even 10% more effectively (let's say at a bit of reasonable cost), they would make even more profit. But doing so takes hard work, they are already making so much money, so they have no desire to look further.
If the profit is so good, that ignoring the money "left on the table" doesn't cause enough pain for the subject involved - well, I think that also creates inefficiencies, complacency, etc.
I also think, when profit is "so good" that other efficiencies go by the wayside, the same behaviors you describe continue. I don't find that the other behaviors go away, really.
I once heard a quote that said, if you wanted any data project funded, convince the CFO that it makes money and they'll go for it. Much like the approaches of TCO, ROI, NPV, IRR, etc - prove the profitable case and you'd think people would buy in.
I have found something like this to be somewhat true - except in companies where they are already making so much money, they don't care about doing the right (or "better") thing. The "more money" they could make is imaginary to them, and they are happy with how much they are already raking in. Until it's super, super tangible/convincing.