Hacker News Reader

Comment by _bxg1 | Hacker News Reader

The China market is often framed as a mortal necessity for companies that have no more room to grow stateside.

What we forget is that this assumes infinite corporate growth, which is literally impossible, despite being demanded by shareholders. We need to drop this notion that every single year has to result in growth. Corporations no longer have the option of settling into a market segment and developing a harmonious relationship with society. They grow like cancers, consuming everything they possibly can ad infinitum, and this unquenchable hunger is the only reason they find themselves making compromises to appease China.

View on HN

That's absolutely right.

The toxic and relentless push for infinite growth pairs really well with the dreamy promise of infinite untapped market potential in China.

I really wish even the greediest of investors and shareholders in general to finally wake up that this dream will never materialise. Even if you get to China you'll quickly find out there are a lot of strings attached if you want your "infinite growth" -- and it definitely will be a lot less than you thought.

You're thinking of it wrong, it's not infinite growth investors are after. They are after easy and fast growth.

Infinite growth is useless on a mortal timescale. Easy and fast growth is where it's at and places like China offer tons of it.

We are saying the same thing with different words. But I do question if China really offers tons of easy and fast growth.

Fast, but we're starting to see the cracks in "easy".

The problem is that most people would need to look in the mirror.

Do you have a 401k? Do you plan on having a retirement? Then infinite growth needs to be a thing, otherwise that 7-9% a year that people think they are "guaranteed" from index funds would evaporate. If people couldn't make money off of passive investments it would turn the entire economy upside down.

to be fair, pension indexed to market rates are such a stupid idea; i'm glad most of europe didn't buy the idea - and they kept using the old model.

You'd still get dividends.

This is the point of confusion: media often presents growth as == profit. But growth is growth in profit. The derivative of profit; expanding profits, over time. A company that doesn't grow at all continues to output just as much profit, just not more profit.

Yes, but dividends aren't going to provide you with a 7% return, and most people that can afford to plan for retirement on the basis of 7% returns can't afford to do so on the basis of ~3-4% you might expect from dividends.

Sure. It wouldn't be a quick-fix; other parts of the system would have to adjust. But it isn't fundamentally infeasible: there's still a positive flow.

We are at a point where society has pushed society/people past their limits in the chase for growth. We are so hungry for growth that we have destroyed the environment to fuel our products, squeezed every last drop of our workers, and have now resorted to selling out our freedoms. And after all of this, most of us are still unable to secure a stable future due to high housing, healthcare, and living costs. Essentially we are at the point where we are just trampling over each other to survive.

I encourage everyone pessimistic about our future to learn about David Deutsch's infinite optimism: https://youtu.be/lX-K63pVPTM

Am I wrong that this motivation comes from investors valuing the total stock price (and ultimate selling of those stocks) over continued paid dividends?

This preference has always bugged me as personally I'd prefer to have a consistent trickle I can plan on than a sudden value spike I have to capitalize on, but I suppose I've always been adverse to gambling anyway.

It is a mortal necessity. If you don't take China's money then someone else will and eventually they will be bigger and able to take you out on the global marketplace.

Either you want globalism or you don't. This is the problem with globalism too, not everyone wants to play by your rules and sometimes they're big enough to tell you to pound sand... which is exactly what China is doing.

Globalism itself is fine, but China has declared itself hostile to the rest of the world. I'm fine with companies seeking growth in countries that are willing to play by the rules. I'm not fine with companies worshipping growth at the expense of all other priorities.

Let Chinese companies have the China market; let the rest of the world cut it off like the tumor it is.

>Infinite corporate growth,

That assumption is not necessary. Economies of scale and network effects are important. Platform companies can be crippled relative to competition if they are cut from large markets even if the markets are finite.

Especially since operating in China seems to always result in losses given the slanted playing field there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com