Submitted 5 months ago by gigachad@piefed.social to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Under capitalism, it seems companies always need to grow bigger. Why can’t they just say, okay, we have 100 employees and produce a nice product for a specific market and that’s fine?
Or is this only a US megacorp thing where they need to grow to satisfy their shareholders?
Let’s ignore that most of the times the small companies get bought by the large ones.
Assume you’re saving X amount of money each month for your retirement.
Your options for storing that money is either:
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.
Probably same reason cancer always needs to grow. It’s a fundamentally broken part of the system.
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.
I would argue that this is not really true under capitalism. The logic of capitalism is one of capital accumulation, which requires growth. Under other systems you still have markets and money and profits but there are other goals than the accumulation of capital and therefore achieving “homeostasis” is a successful strategy-a business run with consistent inputs and outputs which includes a sustainable profit.
You don’t need to argue anything, because there is no universal definition of capitalism. Were not trying to define it.
But the term itself requires capital to be involved, and for a business to exist, that capital needs to be reinvested in the business. That doesn’t require growth. The absolute minimal state simply requires pricing a good sold at a net profit. That’s all. Growth isn’t a requirement.
While this is true it’s certainly the case that publicly traded companies have strong incentives to grow.
Private companies mostly have the ownership, or the desire to go public to blame.
And publicly traded companies are the also the minority of the total number of companies in the US. So this is a niche issue with outsized effects, meaning a policy solution is out there that
A farmer selling their produce is not necessarily a capitalist. A farmer toiling on their own field sells the fruit of their own labor, so to speak. One step up are what Marx calls “Little Masters”: They own and work their means of production, but sometimes have employees such as farmhands or apprentices (Think companies where the owner still works in the workshop). Actual capitalists are detached from the production process: They no longer work, but simply own the so-called means of production and exploit others by buying their labor force for less than their produced result is worth.
People frequently conflate capitalism with enterprise, not seeing the distinctions.
An economic model that includes capitalism explains a lot of the world including having some close process analogs in nature.
A capitalist sounds like a label you’re trying to apply in an attempt to label someone as being maximally for profits. A lot of companies admittedly work that way and it’s important to include that concept.
By my reading you’re taking the use of the first term and then saying they are using the second term. I think this is called equivocation.
If you want to nitpick, I never said farmer. Also, farmers have inputs, so your comparison is wholly removed from reality.
If we are going by the original definition of the word, it is. The farmer here is growing produce to sell it in exchange for money; they are not sharing it with their community, bartering with it, growing it to eat themselves, or giving it to their liege lord.
Shareholders want their shares to increase in value. 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.
Products get worse all the time to grow profits. You don’t need to improve the product to remain competitive, you can buy innovative startups and get credits for their inventions or worse to simply killing them
More money more better…
Yeah that’s the entire problem.
“Always bigger” is delusional or cancerous.
Change the “or” to a “and”, and you got it.
That is a common misconception, very often spread all over the place on Reddit. There is no such requirement.
And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.”
Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. “Shareholder value,” for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.
nytimes.com/…/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-…
caselaw.findlaw.com/court/…/13-354.html
reddit.com/…/eli5_what_people_mean_by_saying_a_co…
You run into a subtext problem here though.
Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits
Making this argument to shareholders means you’re telling them “I wish to shrink your profits”, no matter what else comes after that comma that’s a non-starter for a CEO. 99% of shareholders don’t give one Kentucky fried fuck about the company, they just want free money. You get between them and their free money and you’re gone, replaced by the next failing-upward ghoul in line on LinkedIn.
The idea of having a well established, respected and non-abusive company is no longer a reality in America. The stock market is a vehicle for gambling on shareholder feelings. It’s no longer about the company at all, just about how much you can hype up the company to then pass the bag along to someone else.
Wal-Mart shareholders don’t care if Wal-Mart craters into Hell tomorrow, so long as they get paid dividends and are able to offload their shares at a profit before it dies.
Public companies are also in competition with their peers to attract folks (read enormous investment forms) to buy their stock. So they want their “shareholder value” to be competitive. Shareholder value is at a high level the appreciation of the stock price plus dividends. So public company management is given the goal of increasing shareholder value. Which is the number that must go up. Otherwise those enormous investment firms will buy their competitor’s stock instead.
j4k3@piefed.world 5 months ago
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.