I'm putting this on Flame because I anticipate a vigorous response, of an an ideological and political nature, even though the point I'm bringing up is, IMO, not about politics or even economics at all. I perceive it as being psychological and cultural.

There is a commercial they've been running on TV lately that I find very disturbing. I don't recall what the product is, I've learned to tune that out. I enjoy watching commercials not because of what they advertise, but because they tend to reflect the way we think, or think we think, or think we ought to think. They are little morality plays which not only tell us what to buy, but they often tell us how we should be.

The ad goes like this, it is set in a small shop, some sort of woodworking operation from the evidence of lumber and tools and craftsmen going about their tasks. Two men are having a conversation, they are obviously the owners, partners. One of them is an uptight little Asian man, neatly groomed and dressed in a white shirt and tie, and he is obviously very upset, he must work in the office because he is waving a document. He complains the business is growing too fast, that soon they will have to expand, hire more people, perhaps move to a larger shop. The other fellow is an Anglo, casually dressed in shirt sleeves and fashionably unshaved, he must be in charge of the shop. He is obviously the cool one, the Clint Eastwood/Marlboro Man type. His response to his colleague, in an almost incredulous and patronizing voice: "Isn't that the whole idea?".

No. That's not the whole idea. I think one of the wonderful things about being an independent businessman is that you can control the size and scale of your operation so that it suits your needs, that you have a choice on how big it is, that you have some control of its growth. Perhaps the Asian dude wants to put out a good product at a fair price and he wants his business to provide him with a decent living and self-satisfaction. Perhaps his familys' financial security needs are met, he likes his job, and he has a reputation in his community and industry that suits him. Maybe he has achieved what he set out to do with his life and he is a satisfied, self-actualized person. Isn't his concern about jeopardizing all this by assuming the risks of expansion a legitimate one?

There are also good reasons why any organizantion should avoid stagnation, especially through growth, and there are good business reasons, like stability against economic storms and economies of scale that indicate size does matter. And of course, by making a larger contribution to the community's economic life you are providing even more of a useful function. But a business or businessman is not under any obligation to his community other than to put out a good product at a fair price and to see his customers, investors and employees get a fair shake. Whether or not the business should grow beyond a comfortable and manageable prosperity is a decision the entrepreneur must make for himself, it is not a mandate from society or a law of physics.

In engineering, there is a concept called "scaling", which explores how a successful design (of a boat, aircraft, building etc) may work perfectly well at some size, but if you try to expand that design concept to a larger or smaller model, it may not work. It happens in nature too; insects have an extremely effective body plan, but it simply doesn't scale up well. Ants the size of shetland ponies will not work, and for that matter, the same truth holds in the reverse case: mammals below a certain size simply are not possible. In our economic case, I imagine it is up to the individual busninessman, whether he be an entrepreneur or a hired manager, to make the decision about whether or not to scale up, and it is up to the market to determine whether that decision is the right one or not.

The growth for growth's sake position championed by the makers of this ad and articulated by its attractive central character (and pitiful antagonist), is a psychological position, a cultural paradigm. It has nothing to do with what's best for the businessman, the business, or the economy.