[mossTechnician]

Shouldn't it be worrying that companies are required to make consistent gains* for shareholders and investors? At some point, a company will naturally reach a market saturation point.

* ETA: I meant "growth" here, not profit

[lupire]

If it can't generate profit, it's worth more liquidated than operating.

Employees should buy out investors if they want to keep operating for their own personal profit.

[xp84]

>If it can't generate profit

This wasn't exactly the question. The question was about growth. A company could be very profitable without growth (say, they own a mine which produces $40 million worth of ore each year with expenses of $10 million with no end in sight) or can have growth without profit (Open AI is a great example, or for history, the first 5 years of Facebook.)

I know most of stock investing is about capital gains and not dividends, but I think GP was saying it's inherently impossible to have growth forever.

On a financial level I get why people prefer to invest their money in a stock that goes up rather than one that pays them 8% a year consistently in dividends, but it seems unfortunate that somehow it seems like we aren't allowed to just have sustainable companies that don't depend on infinite growth to stay in business.

[immibis]

Where should the employees get a billion dollars?