Yeah that’s the entire problem.

“Always bigger” is delusional or cancerous.

More money more better…

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.

In the strictest definition, they don’t.

Capitalism is minimally fulfilled when a business sells something for a profit and reinvests the profit (now capital) in the business. Hence the term. It doesn’t have to grow the business, make new products, or do anything beyond maintenance of its processes, be that fixing or updating machinery or training employees. A single person selling tomatoes in a market in Madagascar that fixes of their tomato table with profits is perfectly capitalist.

Expecting constant growth is not a requirement of anything.

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

Assume you’re saving X amount of money each month for your retirement.

Your options for storing that money is either:

1. In cash which will “lessen” in value as time goes by due to inflation
2. In a savings account with middling interest rate
3. Or you could invest in the stock market which will typically offer better return.

Assuming you go for option 3, would you choose to invest in a company with zero growth meaning your retirement fund won’t grow, or would you choose a company that is constantly growing?

Nobody would choose to invest in a company with zero growth or which doesn’t return money back in the form of dividends.

You’re objectively better off investing in companies that grow since those are the companies that will grow your investment.

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.

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.

Note that even if by all practical terms a business isn’t growing, then it’s still growing.

Part of the whole deal is that there’s an intent for the money supply to change for a roughly 2% inflation. In an oversimplified sense, the idea being that everything gets 2% more expensive, everyone gets 2% raises, and investments at least generate 2% returns.

We’ve basically decided that we need to trick ourselves into feeling progress by making “standing still” look like growth. So if someone had flat income year over year, they actually lost in real terms.

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.

Shareholder demands are part of it, but also consider the pressures from competition, inflation, and debt.

If a firm isn’t growing, competition will outgrow them and then gobble up their market share. If you have 100 employees and produce a nice product, you’ll lose out to the firm that has 1000 employees and produces a nicer product. The competition is always growing, so your firm has to grow too. This leads to inflation - as every firm grows in competition with each other they heat up the economy and create more demand for fiat currency - so that means a firm needs to bring in more money every year just to stay afloat. And lastly, companies start out in debt and have to pay it off, and then accumulate more debt in order to outgrow the competition and outgrow inflation, which then in turn heats up competition even more and also causes more inflation.

Competition, inflation, and debt are part of a feedback loop that eventually results in overproduction and market collapse, the surviving firms buy each other out, and the process starts all over again. This is why markets go through boom and bust cycles.

It’s a very irrational system that produces a lot of waste.

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

Growth=good is also a sentiment for whole markets.

In a market where new customers start buying the products every day (growth market), e.g. the smartphone market 20 years ago, you can generally just come up with new products and someone will buy them, if they’re good.

On the other hand, in a market where customers only replace their old products as needed (market saturation), e.g. basically the smartphone market of today, things are much more tight for companies. They have to primarily be more cost-efficient than their competitors in order to survive.

Because they took the money. If you take the money, the path is inevitable

When you take on investors, you just invited in someone who looks at your company like a farmer does to their crops. They want you to grow as much as possible, but they don’t actually care if you live or die - you’re one of many using up resources

If your growth slows, they’re going to demand more. They might demand you make cuts, they might push you to take loans and expand, they might try to sell to someone else. If your value isn’t increasing faster than other possible investments, they lose imaginary money to opportunity cost

And by virtue of being an investor, they have plenty of money and want to gamble with it. A total loss probably wouldn’t impact their lifestyle, they want invest in Apple at the ground floor and become a billionaire

You can start a company through loans, risk your house and build up slowly, and walk away clear. And people do.

But then they want to retire… And there’s this neat trick you can do if you want to own a small business… You can make it buy itself. You can take out a loan to pay out the previous owner, say 5 years of profit, and make the business take on the loan. But now, just to break even, you’ve got to beat what you paid for it plus interest over the term. And both business and individuals can do this

So in short? The reason is debt. A small business can make you upper middle class, a large one could make your entire family insanely wealthy for centuries.

But once you take the money, the business has to grow, or it’ll be harvested

Under capitalism, companies do what their owners want them to do. The owners can choose to try to grow, to shrink, to sell, or to close.

Publicly owned companies have shareholders, and the shareholders usually want the company to grow so their investment grows. Shareholders can have other values, but anyone can become a shareholder.

Under non-capitalist systems, the government might own some or all companies. Then the companies do whatever the party in power wants. The party in power probably doesn't have time to run all the companies, so they give some level of independence. They can reign that back whenever they like.

The most common motivation in non-capitalist systems is probably greed and growing personal wealth of party leaders via corruption under that system. Luckily, the people can vote in a different party and/or protest against party corruption except in all real-world cases, where that is banned or suppressed.

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

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

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…

• Start business. Business very small, want business big. Big business happier than small business.
• Need money to big business, small business not enough money.
• Ask another big business for help small business
• Big business tells small business: We give you money, you get big, you owe us money back.
• small business always trying to be big business

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.

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.

Ape brain often goes “big = good” and therefore “bigger = better”. And since a bunch of other peoples ape brains have thought this before you, then now if you have a tiny business, it’s very likely that your only options are to either get trampled by giants or try and become one of them, even if your ape brain doesn’t think that way.

As a co-owner to a business, we grow because sometimes the funds from what we're already selling slow so we branch out in other directions to cover it. An answer for small businesses at least.

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.

Depends, but to meet demand seems reasonable?
Imagine you invent something splendid and life-changing. You have your company with a 100 employees but you can’t satisfy the market so you expand.
Like with the safety match.

if you look closer you’ll note that it’s very much related to whether a company is publicly trader or not, as soon as people are trading stocks you end up with a bunch of people who don’t actually care about the company and those involved in it, they only care about making money.

a company that isn’t having stocks traded around is able to focus on things other than growth, such as making sustainable revenue or being a public good (or a personal good, like a small café that barely makes any profit and just exists because the owners want to run a café).

I’d highly recommend watching this video, it goes through the history of capitalism and why it is the way it is now

youtu.be/gqtrNXdlraM

They can. But that would make you ‘lose’ capitalism.

Why settle for one yatch, when you could have several mega yatchs?

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

This mostly only happens to companies with outside investors, and it’s in order to make the investors happy.

Companies owned privately by one or a handful of people who all just want the company to keep going, make a decent profit, and be sustainable, don’t always exhibit the “need for growth” behavior.

It’s usually because the investors don’t really give a shit about the company or its mission, they just want money. Often this kind of “need for growth” bullshit is just short term growth, since that’s what most investors care about. It stifles the company’s ability to plan for long term growth and make the right decisions to achieve it.

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.

The reason cited even in privately held companies is pretty much because everyone else is doing it.

Their COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) rises every year. The markup on licenses, the physical hardware, the shrinkflation from the manufacturer, and COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments) for staff all cut into the operating budget (or the profit) of the company.

Under capitalism there are hardly any checks to this, so even companies that are not seeking to grow must raise rates else they will take a loss every year.

They don’t.

See local businesses that remain a single location for generations.

It is a want not a need.

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.

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?

There are many answers to this.

First, this is not a general capitalism thing. It is more the specific flavor we have. Second, it is not an absolute rule, there are companies that don’t focus on growth, but it is rare amongst massive companies.

The original idea of capital investment is that when you need investment for your company (e.g. to buy better machines, expand production, etc.) you let people invest (by buying shares) and then give them a portion of the profits gained from that investment (in the form of dividends).

However, most companies have figured out that if they don’t pay dividends but re-invest the money, shareholders are still happy because their shares get more valuable as the company grows and they get to grow the company, which is good for CEO paychecks and lot of other things.

There are things like economies of scale (if you produce million units of something per year, it is almost always cheaper per unit than if you produce ten per year). So if you don’t grow, your competitor that does grow could sell cheaper than you and put you out of business.

And a lot more.

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

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.

Valuation of companies is partially dependent on growth. A company that is projected to grow is worth more than a similarly sized company because it is expected that future growth will make the company earn more in the future, which makes the company worth more now.

I didn’t see a single top level comment be the devil’s advocate so I will give it a try.

Humanity moves forward. Standards are always shifting. New technologies and needs are created everyday and people want to raise their standard of living to accommodate for new things. Also, global population has been growing since we stabilized food production in the 1800’s.

If companies don’t grow at least with population, that means tomorrow we will have less than today. If companies don’t also grow with raising standards of living, that means someone stays poor. If companies don’t also grow to match the complexities of producing new technology, that means we stopped in time technologically.

In a competitive system such as capitalism, you don’t wait for more competitors to show up and fill this new ever-growing demand; you take that demand for yourself. So everyone seeks growth.

When a society does not grow (i.e. japan) for too long, capitalism doesn’t break down immediately, but you clearly see it stagnates. Japan’s population is not stable and their economy is facing major problems.

Whether growth is organic or fabricated is a related, but different, topic

It’s not “companies”, it’spublicly traded companies.

And the answer is quite simple really: the moment you become publicly traded your stock becomes your product, and everything else becomes a means to deliver better stock prices to your investors.

Not all companies are publicly traded, I patronise privately held companies wherever possible because as a client I’m still at the core of their business strategy, and I’m wary of the alternative.

At the end of the day, bad strategies result in bad products and services. Vote with your wallet, it’s very possible.

Because we decided to play this fucking game. Not growing is stagnation, which is wrong of course.

So we keep on hoarding more money for smaller groups.

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.

I guess it’s mostly because companies that don’t try to grow are eventually pushed into irrelevance by companies that do. So most companies you hear about are growth oriented.

In some sense it can be good for consumers. If you have a nice idea for consumers, it’s good that you are able to reach more of them or become more efficient in doing so.

Also, to start a business you need money. You can get money from investors, but they expect either interests on the loan, or that you grow so that their share is worth more. The latter is attractive, because you don’t have to pay interests that can weigh your company down. But then the value of your company is almost defined by it’s potential for growth. If you then decide not to grow anymore, this will tank the value of the company, and you might be stuck with a huge pile of stinking debt.

It’s perfectly possible to have a company that is not growing and just stays where it’s at. But then the salaries of the employees won’t be growing either, and often that will lead to the best employees leaving. Which in turn will turn the non-growing into shrinking.

Perhaps you’ve seen a stagnant company and perhaps you have seen a growing company. The one feels like a cemetery while the other feels like a student party. Either can be good or bad depending on what kind of vibe you enjoy.

Note that this is not a feature of capitalism exclusively. Pretty much all systems thrive on growth, it’s more like a law of nature, not something humans created.

Also, capitalism reacts pretty well to downturns: companies shrink or even die completely if they’re not needed anymore. One of the major reasons Capitalism should work better than all the alternatives is that creative destruction. Problem is that governments are afraid of that destruction and usually try to prevent it from happening. I think a better way would be to let companies (including those “too-big-to-die” ones like large banks) die when it’s their time to die, and rather protect the invidiuals from the effects. The longer you support things that should just die the harder the fall will be.

strong growing markets are ok . the problem is wages, wealth distribution, uber rich billionaires who want to enslave us for an AI god or some dumb shit idfk

You do have some of those companies but they are super large and cant grow anymore. They have essentially taken over the entire market.

For a small company, money is safety and power. So they always want more, because otherwise they feel like someone could disrupt them and make them irrelevant.

Its the same psychology as with humans. We always want more comfort, safety, and that requires money.

I guess because otherwise you have something more akin to communism.

Which is a big scary monster and the biggest economies in the world would rather suppress a system the levels the playing field and helps everyone than give up their dollary-doos.

I think about this from time to time.

Its like, hey we make a product and it costs this much to make and we make this much profit, so that should be it. Thats how much this product makes. Dunzo. Next muffin. But it never works that way, once they have found the sweet spot where the product is useful and works well whilst also selling for a price that pays for production development and wages then it becomes about cutting costs to increase profits and that takes the form of using cheaper materials, paying lower wages, firing staff, incorporating planned obsolescence so people need to buy more. All in the name of profits and bonuses.

Its disgusting, it damages society, the environment and warps peoples minds so that people like donald trump exist and i hate it.

Growth stocks are worth more than mature stocks, because people are more likely to invest if they think they’ll make money back.

I see a great deal of economic rationale being thrown around and usually I love a good discussion on economics, but I believe we are overthinking the question. I would argue any group of people getting together with some shared narrative is going to want to procure more resources for themselves. This can be a family, a tribe, a friend group, a company, a nation, etc. It’s just how we are.

One aspect I haven’t read about: competitive pressure and economics of scale.

So, imagine two carpenters: they both produce one chair a day. They sell it and can sustain their families with that. Now the one carpenter works a little overtime and uses sharper tools: he’s able to produce two chairs a day. He still needs only to sustain his family, so he could sell the chairs at 50% discount. But he goes for 75% of its original price. Still cheaper, he has more.

Everybody wants to buy those chairs now: they’re the same, but one is way cheaper. The other carpenter loses business, he can’t sustain his family anymore, because he needs to sell one chair a day at least. To keep up, his business needs to grow now.

There has to be some growth because inflation eats at the value of your capital every year.

Because they run out of “create” and they’re slaves to the quarterly report.

A new company that makes/sells a widget that is desirable will grow naturally from the demand for the product. It has to get bigger to manage the demand. They go public to get more money to grow more quickly. Those public investors expect a return on their stock investment purchase.

Now competitors show up. Competition is bad for our big startup (despite being a supposed tenant of the free market that allowed our company to grow quickly in the first place) that is now a major power in the widget industry. You can only make the widget so many ways, can’t really improve it, and the market is becoming saturated. So what happens next? WidgetCo’s stock is flat! Investors are mad! The CEO is in trouble! Now we do acquisitions and enshittification. Buy the competitors and adjacent product makers. Now there’s “growth” again even though nothing new is made, in fact the product gets worse and nobody gets hired as they want attrition to get rid of redundant employees. The hope is that the widget is so engrained in society that it can’t be done without. Now do unbundling. Subscriptions. Sunsetting. Modify the product so that new versions must be bought due to batteries or servers no longer supporting previous versions. If you can’t make new things, make the customer buy new versions of the same old things.

Gotta keep pushing that quarterly report line up to keep the investors happy and the CEO bonuses coming.

Shareholder demand? Greed? Probably a lot of both.

Some companies do not pursue further growth, usually because they are not confident they can. They use/harvest their profit stream to repay shareholders. A confident company can spend its cashflow on growth because it expects an ROI for doing so, and so even higher future cashflow.

Because they take investment.

Privately held companies can sit around earning the exact same amount of profit forever.

But if you are publicly traded on the stock market, people are walking up and injecting money into your business. They expect a return for that investment. And that means that the part of your business they’ve bought has to be worth more in the future in order for them to sell it for more than they bought it.

Therefore: growth. Owning 1% of a $100k business isn’t with as much as owning 1% of a $200k business. So if you own 1%, you want it to go from $100k to $200k.

If you aren’t taking outside money, none of this is a problem. Unless the owners just want a raise, which most people generally do over time. If nothing else, inflation is constantly eroding the value of money so you need to grow a little just to stand still. Most people don’t want to make do with less and less over time.

If you have a company in a small town and everything is paid for and the size of the town isnt growing or changing, you actually do not need to grow. There is a company in Leadville, Colorado called “Melanzana”. They make technical hoodies - they’re pretty good. They actively shrank their business by closing their online storefront to reduce demand and reduce the burden of keeping up with that demand.

HOWEVER, if you have a business that is plugged into a larger marketplace and you have investors or have growing rents, etc. your investors expect a return on their investment and your growing costs need to be addressed so the only option is to grow to keep up.

Super interesting topic when you contextualize within a closed, limited, physical space. And by “super interesting” I mean dystopian.

Because greed

Nonprofit companies don’t have this problem. It’s an issue with capitalism.

What I was taught literally in fifth grade was this: “A company is successful when its profit is zero.” Meaning, everyone has been paid and the company has lost nothing.

The way I was taught it was by the teacher asking the class and all of us getting it wrong with answers like “A company is successful when it makes a million dollars” and such.

I will never forget it.

I highly recommend reading this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Not all companies need to grow. Some do perfectly fine by just maintaining their current output like a owner operated single person plumbing company.

Another example can be Walmart, they don’t need to grow but investors prefer growth so it becomes a focus.

There are some companies that need absolutely to grow to survive. This is seen a lot in tech where in order for the business model to make sense they would need some big quantity of users.

Let’s say you got seeded 10M and managed to get to a minimal product with 10k users that get you $2 in revenue monthly but your cost are around 50k monthly. It means you’re making a loss but with 100k users you’d make a profit. To get to 100k you need more investment but to justify that investment being sound you need show growth.

So in general if being bigger gets you economies of scale then making a loss early is fine as long as you can get the investor money you need to survive. So to survive as a business you need to grow.

Those are two ends of a spectrum and everything in between exists as well. So quick answer would be “Companies don’t always need to grow but some really do because their business model only works at a different scale”.

Because the moment they go public the stock market demands they constantly have an improvement basis to keep their stock holders in a state of security to keep invested. So like get this: there’s a company that makes medical machines to keep people alive. A founder retired and the stock market dipped to half the price. Which only lasts less than a month and it recovers. Of course anyone who’s leading teams would then panic and get flustered

…like this is a company that should have its target about human life. And all the stock holders are worried about is the suit. Like it’s not even an improvement of a product. Improvements are all bullshit announcement for Wall Street.

That is…until crypto collapses it all.

Tax the rich and fix this shit.

If you have competitors, they will develop and have better products / service than you

There’s always room for improvement, and improving requires resources

Extremely oversimplified:

-for Public Companies: CEO and executives are obliged to pursue maximum profit (either short-term or long-term) for the shareholders, thus the company must grow. - - For shareholders its Cost of capital (basically shareholders want bigger returns than the investment they made) and Opportunity Cost (lose money because you don’t move your investment to a company that is more profitable or gonna be more profitable)

-for private companies: Competition (grow or die from your competitor), efficiency (reducing cost), exit (sell it big and retire), psychological reasons (better safe than sorry), etc…

There are many family business or small companies that function as you describe, but they get replaced and driven out of business in a matter of years or decades (with exceptions). But being stable in an growing economy is very hard and risky. And Capitalism by definition must grow or it gets in crisis.