This is a sloppy argument that mixes virtue-signaling, cherry-picks anecdotes, and doesn’t address the core topic: is growth always good?
There are many reasons a company might grow. One is that a company, flush with VC funding, effectively gives away money to buy customers and growth. I’m skeptical that there is enough VC money to buy hockey-stick growth, but if I’m incorrect, then the real issue is, “VC money is poisonous to the free-market,” and not that growth is cancerous.
The other reason for growth is that a startup is making what people want. People might want it so badly that they will put up with buggy and incomplete products — as long as those products fulfill an unmet need.
If what people want is shortsighted (gas guzzling devices?) or just wrong (short selling?), then yes, growth is cancerous. But again, the real issue is “the failure of Governmental regulation against unsafe or unethical products is cancerous.”
The problems identified with growth are not essentially about companies. A company that is growing, given proper private and public regulation, is by definition providing more value to the world.
So in some sense at least, the article is right — there are more important things than growth, if you simply add an adjective: legitimate growth.
> is a strategy of not pursuing growth better for a company?
I think this might lead to a more relevant discussion than is happening elsewhere in this thread.
Besides--"perpetual growth" as a concept is on the same plane as "the customer is always right." It's not expected to be literally true, it's a mindset. If you're not trying to improve, you're likely stagnating or getting worse. If you're consistently at-odds with what your customer is expecting, it may mean you should be re-assessing how you're doing business.
I think ultimately it is healthy for businesses to be constantly re-evaluating whether they can do more, or do it for less. And that's all "perpetual growth" means.
There are many reasons a company might grow. One is that a company, flush with VC funding, effectively gives away money to buy customers and growth. I’m skeptical that there is enough VC money to buy hockey-stick growth, but if I’m incorrect, then the real issue is, “VC money is poisonous to the free-market,” and not that growth is cancerous.
The other reason for growth is that a startup is making what people want. People might want it so badly that they will put up with buggy and incomplete products — as long as those products fulfill an unmet need.
If what people want is shortsighted (gas guzzling devices?) or just wrong (short selling?), then yes, growth is cancerous. But again, the real issue is “the failure of Governmental regulation against unsafe or unethical products is cancerous.”
The problems identified with growth are not essentially about companies. A company that is growing, given proper private and public regulation, is by definition providing more value to the world.
So in some sense at least, the article is right — there are more important things than growth, if you simply add an adjective: legitimate growth.