No Stupid Questions

I hate it. It even bleeds over into performance reviews. Like you'll never get a perfect score no matter how hard you work because you always have to be improving on something. It's supposed to be the sure fire sign of "success" but all it does is create impossible goals and bring everyone down.

Charles Eisenstin's book "Sacred Economics" (which you can read here and that I recommend reading in full) has a nice, simple parable in chapter 6 about that.

Once upon a time, in a small village in the Outback, people used barter for all their transactions. On every market day, people walked around with chickens, eggs, hams, and breads, and engaged in prolonged negotiations among themselves to exchange what they needed. At key periods of the year, like harvests or whenever someone's barn needed big repairs after a storm, people recalled the tradition of helping each other out that they had brought from the old country. They knew that if they had a problem someday, others would aid them in return. One market day, a stranger with shiny black shoes and an elegant white hat came by and observed the whole process with a sardonic smile. When he saw one farmer running around to corral the six chickens he wanted to exchange for a big ham, he could not refrain from laughing. "Poor people," he said, "so primitive." The farmer's wife overheard him and challenged the stranger, "Do you think you can do a better job handling chickens?" "Chickens, no," responded the stranger, "But there is a much better way to eliminate all that hassle." "Oh yes, how so?" asked the woman. "See that tree there?" the stranger replied. "Well, I will go wait there for one of you to bring me one large cowhide. Then have every family visit me. I'll explain the better way." And so it happened. He took the cowhide, and cut perfect leather rounds in it, and put an elaborate and graceful little stamp on each round. Then he gave to each family 10 rounds, and explained that each represented the value of one chicken. "Now you can trade and bargain with the rounds instead of the unwieldy chickens," he explained. It made sense. Everybody was impressed with the man with the shiny shoes and inspiring hat. "Oh, by the way," he added after every family had received their 10 rounds, "in a year's time, I will come back and sit under that same tree. I want you to each bring me back 11 rounds. That 11th round is a token of appreciation for the technological improvement I just made possible in your lives." "But where will the 11th round come from?" asked the farmer with the six chickens. "You'll see," said the man with a reassuring smile. Assuming that the population and its annual production remain exactly the same during that next year, what do you think had to happen? Remember, that 11th round was never created. Therefore, bottom line, one of each 11 families will have to lose all its rounds, even if everybody managed their affairs well, in order to provide the 11th round to 10 others. So when a storm threatened the crop of one of the families, people became less generous with their time to help bring it in before disaster struck. While it was much more convenient to exchange the rounds instead of the chickens on market days, the new game also had the unintended side effect of actively discouraging the spontaneous cooperation that was traditional in the village. Instead, the new money game was generating a systemic undertow of competition among all the participants.

The development of currency results in loans. The practice of loaning starts the practice of charging interest. Interest requires constant growth.

Individual companies have to grow to keep up with the necessary constant growth of the economy as a whole. Any company that doesn't keep up dies.

Shareholder primacy. Thank you Dodge v Ford. Thank you Friedman Doctrine.

Growth is needed so that Capitalists can make a living.

Without growths, owning companies would only pay dividents which would result in much less income.

Probably same reason cancer always needs to grow. It's a fundamentally broken part of the system.

They don't. It is a fallacy. Category error.

It’s all based around fractional reserve lending and interest. Banks take in deposits and lend several times the deposit amount at interest against that reserve. To pay back the bank the business sector has to grow in order to pay interest on the principal. Make sense?

Idiots began to demand perpetual growth and other idiots began trying to make it happen. And then it became institutionalized. And then the idiots forgot they were idiots.

Disclaimer that I'm not an economist

I believe I have heard a discussion about this before... that the "always grow bigger" model is not only not a necessity under capitalism, it wasn't even the predominant economic model in the US for a while. Post war, FDR's New Deal followed the Keynesian model, which from my understanding indirectly led to the type of regulated capitalism with a much heavier emphasis on shareholder/employee satisfaction... and also when the extremely high progressive income tax brackets happened. The always need to grow bigger idea may or may not have come from Milton Friedman of the UChicago school in the 1970s: one of the core assumptions of the Neoclassical model is that companies maximize profits.

Also this is definitely not just a US megacorp thing. Other countries have megacorps too. Case in point South Korea...

Shareholders want their shares to increase in value, because that's how you earn wealth, your retirement fund grows, etc. That means the company needs to earn more profit (more precisely, profit per share). To do that you typically grow, but you can also do it by buying back stock (that increases profit per share), or by "increasing efficiency" which is usually a dead end.

Fiduciary responsibility. If you own a company that has shareholders they can sue you for refusing money or 'leaving money on the table', iirc this was a major reason why they sold twitter to musk

If the owners primarily want to make money by taking out a portion of revinue as dividends or distributions, like a family business typically does, then stable revenue is more important in some ways than reinvesting in growth.

If the ownership wants to make money by eventually selling their stake (shares or equity) in the company then growth is fundamental to the strategy.

There are plenty of small companies that don't grow. Think mom and pop shops and self employed tradesmen.

I've you get a bit bigger and you've already got the hassle of employing lots of people in multiple places you can't really balance it to be neutral, you will grow or shrink and it's a lot more pleasant to grow than shrink.

Profits about all. The size of the company itself, eh. But, profits must grow infinitely apparently.

Inflation, but also scale of manufacturing and tooling.

I was a Buyer for a chain of bike shops. You will not buy the same stuff forever. Continuous manufacturing is also generally much more expensive. Most cheap modern goods are made through contract manufacturing. That creates the cycle of seasonal products. Even something like cars involves a tooling cycle where the same stuff cannot be made indefinitely; the tools wear out with time. The market saturates with any given design. All people do not want to drive a Toyota Corolla from 1992 in beige.

More money more better…

Year over year is what EVERY company looks at.

Making the same amount of money as you did last year is considered a failure in business.

Only workers are expected to be happy with good enough. The elite will never say the balance of thier bank account is good enough. And thus companies always need to grow bigger.

Companies grow and shrink from a combination of market and internal forces. Companies sometimes need to shrink or grow. The economy and culture are constantly changing. That is why it is very hard to predict where things will go.

Your example of having a company with a set amount of employees that produce a set product happens pretty frequently. A lot of employee owned or family businesses are this way.

I think most of your post can be summed up with why do investors want more and more money. The answer is because they can. If your company owes money to investors then they will beholden to them in one form or another.

There is another worthy discussion here and it is about boards. Boards that do not contain equal representation for the employees and the public can be very destructive.

Most of the corporate abuses we have suffered come from having perverse leadership non-representative of these two most important influences.

Shareholders are always going to demand more profits. There is no mechanism in a capitalist economy that reinforces the concept of having "enough."