Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell... More from the NYT this morning, in an article on mergers: "''I speak with senior executives in the course of my research,'' [said] Robert Bruner, the Darden business school professor. ''They all tell stories about how they are charged with maintaining earnings growth. They can only get 5 to 6 percent growth organically, yet the C.E.O. has set a target that is much more ambitious, and they must make up the difference by acquisitions.''

So, a typical large business is capable of growing 5-6% organically, but the CEO (and the markets) demand stronger growth than is possible from a mature company. So the only way to get that growth is to buy it.

This feeds into one of my recurring rants about shareholder capitalism. Shareholder capitalism started like this: I'll buy some of your company, and you give me some of the profits. Highest goal: Profitability.

But then it mutated into this: I'll buy some of your company, and you make the company more valuable so that I can sell my piece to someone else later for more than I bought it for. Higest goal: Increasing market value of company.

The first model incents companies that sell things (or services or whatever). The second model incents companies that essentially sell themselves. Why is this any different from "Greater Fool" on a massive, massive scale?  ¶ 9:09 AM