i've always wondered why someone hasn't started a non-profit business to start selling goods and services, in which they should be able to out-compete the for-profit enterprises, since they can sell at cost just to break even, or sell at less of a markup.
you could get one going, then use what would be the "profits" (since you can't keep them) as seed funding a second similar non-profit in a different industry, then a third, by then the 2nd one could seed fund a fourth, and so on and so on until eventually, you would have expanded into every industry. and over time, since you can always out-compete the capitalist, you would have monopolized every industry with non-profit enterprises.
depending on how you structured it, you could stipulate some kind of collective social ownership, or each industry could be run as a non-profit worker cooperative with workplace democracy.
i am sure there are a thousand little reasons why this might fail, but i don't see any big gotcha? it seems like a sound idea. i guess maybe the capitalists would be willing to run at a loss to try and stop you, but that's still a good outcome? maybe try to make it illegal? i am not sure how you could make it illegal to sell good and services at break-even prices. price controls, ok fine, we will just have more money for seed funding.
i guess TLDR the ability to run a not-for-profit business seems like a pretty big weakness for capitalism.
In a non-profit this is not possible. Employees only make their salaries. What makes it a worker cooperative would be workplace democracy, all the workers would be able to vote, basically as board members. No one truly "owns" a non-profit.
Not sure what I said that could be construed as 'multiplying liquid cash'. That doesn't even make sense.
Actually a cooperative is one of the few nonprofit structures where you can distribute surplus margins back to members.
The alchemy comment was in reference to where you said you would use accounting tricks to accumulate seed funding for the next venture. There's no "trick" that can help you save money faster, you'll still be operating at for-profit margins likely worse because again, your system is designed to put employees in control of how much they are earning. (and of course you've accepted a profit margin of half your closest competitor)
It sounds nice for one company but won't be earning enough to spawn others as quickly or effectively as you believe it will. Cute little neighborhood coop? sure. Titan of industry crushing giant corporations changing the landscape of capitalism? Never.
Unless otherwise indicated a worker cooperative is a for-profit institution, with the profit going to the worker-owners. A nonprofit is a completely different kind of institution, which cannot redistribute surpluses as profits under any conditions. But a nonprofit can be structured as a cooperative. "Nonprofit cooperative" is a very tiny category of businesses, as far as I can tell. If you want to be really technical, a nonprofit can't be a true worker cooperative because it's not "owned" by anyone, including the workers. But it can be structured to be governed by the workers collectively.
https://cdi.coop/how-are-nonprofits-and-co-ops-different/
The only mechanism the workers would have to distribute surpluses would be through bonuses, but that is pretty thin ice. Total compensation for nonprofit employees must be "reasonable" and "not excessive" so that would possibly allow for bonuses, but not to a degree beyond the typical range of total compensation for the type of employees receiving the bonus.
A for-profit cooperative, on the other hand, would be doing this as a standard practice.