Your link does not show that, it does not even compare smaller vs. bigger businesses
It does, even if you fail to see it. In only 30 years, those small garage sized startups outpaced century old megacorporations.
According to the logic: "Larger companies can better adapt, has more capital, can survive temporary losses, etc", that should not be possible. We should be conversing on ExxonBook. Yet the examples are right there.
And bigger companies are clearly in a better position to adapt to changes than smaller ones, so your argument is only reinforcing my point.
How so? The replacement rate is shorter than in recorded history (1)
It seems that the older corporations had a very hard time adapting to new technology, to the point that they've been replaced by new smaller ones that outpaced them in only 30 years?
And it didn't simply go "bankrupt", it lost a literal war against the United Kingdom (the fourth Anglo-Dutch War).
It also went bankrupt.
Note: around 1670 the VOC had 50k workers
Of course you have to place it in historixal context: both in world population and in respect to other contemporary companies.
Isn't that a bit like argueing that a bathtub needs to increase in size every time you take a bath, as you add water?
In other words, it's ignoring a whole part of the bath: the drain.
In the same way it's ignoring a whole part of capitalism: bankrupcies and other forms of debt foregiveness. As some businesses become irrelevant, and as new ones are started.
So the population does need to grow in order to sustain economic growth
The argument is going round in circles, but never explains if nor why capitalism requires economic growth. Therefore it also does not explain if nor why it requires population growth.
I'm not convinced it's as simple as you make it out to be, as places that experience more poverty and violence appear to have higher fertility rates (1).
1.084USD per EUR yesterday moved to 1.097USD per EUR today.