I really don't want to believe everyone has a price, since that would mean I have one, but the evidence offers very few if any solid counterexamples.

Sometimes you're kind of forced into it: if your growth starts taking off faster than you thought, you may be in need of more capital just to stay in business. At that point you have a choice: slam the brakes (turn down customers), borrow (risky), raise (dilutes you), or sell out. If you can find a solid working relationship within the acquirer's company, all is good...

There is actually nothing wrong with turning down business. No need to grow faster than you can handle. A company in the situation you describe is doing something very right, so maintaining that seems like a good strategy.

For an entrepreneur who set out to fix a problem in the world, it can feel very wrong not to give customers the solution that you know you can give them, for mere capital reasons.

There is nothing wrong with it, but it's hard to do skillfully, especially in the chaos generated by rapid growth, and you may not realize the need until you're already trapped by your existing commitments. Good relationships in the company can fall apart in the decision-making, too (e.g. if someone's personal/career growth path is cut off by the decision to stop pursing something that's been built towards for years.)

Some types of businesses can do it more easily than others. Professional services can probably do it the easiest. A B2C business with a turnkey offering could have a lot of trouble paring back, especially if the product has a physical aspect.

If it gets that much bigger you (the owner) probably aren't doing the same thing you were doing.

Try reversing this argument and talk about employee resisting much better offer, to remain loyal and you'll get eaten alive by commenters :-)

Is that so? I see a lot of people not wanting to switch for solely more money because they expect to hate it at a potential new company.

Yes and the same works for founders. If they expect, they will hate it after buyout, they will probably resist.

But what if new opportunity is ok, gets you 30% more money, but your departure makes your current company very sad and perhaps worse place for everyone to work at?

I wouldn't expect a lot of support for the idea of staying if you ask the internet for an opinion.

The two aren't unrelated. In the distant past companies had professional and personal development programs. Some even had a commitment to try to avoid layoffs.

When MBA culture took over in the 80s it became normal for companies to act like extraction machines. Employee loyalty crashed, with a corresponding increase in churn.

Taking investment money makes it hard to create a humane culture. But smaller private companies do at least have the option to consider it.

You try dealing with everyone's problems and hitting all the deadlines all the time..!

If you don't, your successor will. Money makes the world go round.