[topspin]

That's a pithy, vivid snarkonym I suppose; 10/10. The reality is that things don't exist in a vacuum: competitors exist and one of the best defenses against competitors is growth. Growth provides affordances, such as ample capital, market profile and regulatory leverage to counter competitors. Certainly one can conceive of alternative ways of surviving competitors, but it never hurts to be a thriving concern. That's hard work for all involved though, so better to simply spiral the rest of the way down and condemn competition as well: perhaps "The Market is societal metastasis".

Or something. You'll get there anyhow, so best to start working on the next clever derogation now.

[adamc]

I agree with your response, but I also think it's an unsustainable model, which is why it's a "mind cancer". Growth makes things easier but nothing grows indefinitely, and that mind-set has done a lot to create climate change problems.

[ganzuul]

Is it a case of survival when a startup is bought by a multinational? Is the buyer a competitor?

[topspin]

That's the buyer seeking growth, even if only to shut the bought down, yielding relative growth. Big fish eat little fish. That's the universe talking, as opposed to whatever ideology you prefer to blame.

The "solution" -- should you perceive a problem with all this -- is destabilizing the large such that the small find more opportunities. Hating on growth isn't compatible with this, however: you must be capable of tolerating the small enjoying growth.

[ganzuul]

If big fish eat little fish why have nation states not nationalized everything?