There are actually at least two such companies at the moment - Tesla Motors and SpaceX. For both the profit and market position is secondary to, respectively, electrification of transport and making humanity interplanetary. Elon Musk explicitly said on many occasions that in case of Tesla profits are secondary and they don't care if in next decades they'll be top player or disappear completely, as long as everyone is driving electric.

How many companies are you putting money into month after month that aren't turning a profit or providing you any sort of return?

I say month after month because if the company is not turning a profit, someone has to keep the lights on.

Not maximizing profit doesn't mean you need to be in the red. You could break even, or just profit less. You still keep the lights on yourself, or even turn some profit, without 'maximizing' profit.

> is profit-maximization a law?

If we are talking about Public Companies, yes. Privately owned ones can do whatever they want, but in practice the ones that do'nt care about the bottom line tend to be driven out of the market by those who do.

> because i don't see why for example a company can't be formed for the purpose of "betterment of humanity"

Those are called NGOs.

> > is profit-maximization a law?

> If we are talking about Public Companies, yes.

Please cite the relevant law.

Companies have what is called fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/corporate-fidu...

This would work until you get some douche "Activist Investor" like Carl Ichan to buy up a bunch of shares and get all pissed because the company isn't working to maximize profit, despite it's stated goal that it wants to do something else. Because all that matters is that he can make money, and the thought that he could simply not buy shares in the company never occurred to him.