[asdff]

It would be refreshing if business didn't have any incentive to maximize shareholder value. Lots of great things are killed or diluted for a handful of people to get a return. Exponential growth isn't sustainable, yet it's expected to keep shareholders rich and satiated at the cost of the quality of product that the end customer receives. What's wrong with just making a good product and running a business well enough to cover your overhead and pay your employees well? Why do we never hear of these stories in Bloomberg or Forbes?

[SeanAppleby]

There's nothing barring this. Just don't sell any control of your company to anyone who won't agree with this strategy indefinitely, and run a consistently cash flow positive business so you will never be in a position to need to bend that rule to make payroll. It's definitely harder, especially if you don't have your own capital to start with, or hit a temporary bump in the road that bleeds the war chest, but people do it.

If you take outside capital to accelerate your business on the assumption that the investors will make money as it grows, you're choosing to join that system, no one forces you to participate.

Although I suppose you could end up in a zero sum competition with another business for market share, and there might be an unstable nash equilibrium where you both might want to not raise money, but if the other raises significant capital they could crush you, so you are kind of systematically pushed to play the game to keep your vision alive.

[greendestiny_re]

I believe it's a fundamental lack of faith in one's product or service that results in untenable corporate growth maximization schemes.