Well, non-profits are not exactly capitalist companies like the ones for profit. Neither necessarily are the small business where the owner values other things over the expansion and profit. But these things are not much relevant when concerning most of production, the things that influence a country's GDP. These small businesses or non-profit organizations indeed may have concerns other than profit. But good luck convincing shareholders in a big company that they should take the less profitable path, especially if there is competition with other companies.

Shareholders can be convinced that a long term play may be less profitable today than it will be in a decade and opt to take that path. I’m not sure why that’s assumed to be prima facie untrue.

Is Uber or Door Dash not a company or mot capitalist? The latter especially appears to have no road to profit. If it’s not capitalist, by your definition, what is it? Why are its shareholders not replacing the board on a daily basis until someone makes it profitable?

> Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion?

The law makes such businesses slightly less likely to survive. There are ideas and ideals that are the source of that law.

Do you think that’s unfair? Do you think suggesting that capitalism is just about enriching shareholders today is not reductive?

Whether the law makes small businesses less likely to survive (citation needed) is immaterial to the question.