No Stupid Questions

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

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

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.

The non-toxic version of this is growth = innovation. The company may make the same money and remain the same size, but the product should constantly improve to remain competitive.

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

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.

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...

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."