I wouldn't organize your "helper table" that way. I would keep only {Region, Salesman, StartDate}. To create a view of intervals, join that table to itself to create data ranges where a.StartDate < b.StartDate. Use an outer join, so that NULL represents an EndDate of "now", which you can coalesce with the current date or other, as appropriate. To represent departures (not reassignments) use an artificial region named CiaoBaby or some such.

Now your maintenance chore is much easier; you need only capture staffing changes. The table is oodles smaller (over time, 100 or 1000 oodles). And you automatically have the built-in assumption that, absent contrary information, a salesman remains attached today to the same one as last month.

Simple self-join

What you want is something like this...

SELECT
  ARRAY[f1.type,f2.type] AS type,
  date,
  tp,
  greatest(f1.price-f2.price, '0.00') AS price
FROM foo AS f1
INNER JOIN foo AS f2
  USING (date, tp)
WHERE f1.type <> f2.type
ORDER BY f1.type, f2.type, tp;

I deviated a bit from what you desired. Generally, you don't want string concatenation like that. It's less useful. You're better off using an array. If you do want string concatenation just use f1.type || '_' || f2.type.

 type  |    date    | tp | price 
-------+------------+----+-------
 {A,B} | 2010-10-01 |  1 |  0.00
 {A,B} | 2010-10-01 |  2 |  0.00
 {A,C} | 2010-10-01 |  1 |  0.00
 {A,C} | 2010-10-01 |  2 |  0.02
 {A,D} | 2010-10-01 |  1 |  0.00
 {A,D} | 2010-10-01 |  2 |  0.00
 ...
 (24 rows)

Crosstab

Cross-tab does something totally different. It only ever changes the display.

SELECT *
FROM crosstab($$
  SELECT
    ARRAY[f1.type,f2.type] AS type,
    date,
    tp,
    greatest(f1.price-f2.price, '0.00') AS price
  FROM foo AS f1
  INNER JOIN foo AS f2
    USING (date, tp)
  WHERE f1.type <> f2.type
  ORDER BY f1.type, f2.type, tp;
$$, $$VALUES (1),(2)$$
) AS t(type text[],"date" date,tp1 numeric,tp2 numeric);

Produces...

 type  |    date    | tp1  | tp2  
-------+------------+------+------
 {A,B} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.00
 {A,C} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.02
 {A,D} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.00
 {B,A} | 2010-10-01 | 0.48 | 0.00
 {B,C} | 2010-10-01 | 0.48 | 0.02
 {B,D} | 2010-10-01 | 0.48 | 0.00
 {C,A} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.00
 {C,B} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.00
 {C,D} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.00
 {D,A} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.04
 {D,B} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.04
 {D,C} | 2010-10-01 | 0.00 | 0.06
(12 rows)

12 rows rather than 24. We pivoted and put tp1, and tp2 together. Pick your poison -- what kind of display do you want? I always prefer not using cross tab unless someone requires it.

Performance questions

My current solution is a view that uses CTE(s) to create all the possible dates and type combos, and then I have a function that goes through every typeA and typeB, date, tp combo. It is very slow.

We would need to actually see the views, and to an output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE to know why it runs slow. Try the query I suggested at the top and see if it speeds things up.