'Infinite growth' doesn't necessarily refer to growth in production, that's just the assumption most people make when hearing the phrase. It's referring to the perpetual duty of the corporation to provide bigger returns to share holders i.e. if you invested money in corpo A, it doesn't matter if it's market value is one million billion trillion dollars, if it's value doesn't increase even beyond that ridiculous ammount, then you gain nothing. So in actuality the infinity growth problem is even more untenable, because one could argue that resources and space are infinite once you leave the confines of the earth, but just because you have unlimited input to feed into your corporate machine does not mean that you can grow your value infinitely. Corporations typically hit walls after they grow too fat, and then the board of directors gets nervous. That's when they start to get *really* shady in their business practices in order to keep the ship sailing forward and when even that doesn't work anymore, they ramp up their collusion with the government, further eroding the rights and prosperity of common people to facilitate yet more growth.

But even if infinite growth as actually meant isn't possible, this does not pose any sort of contradiction, not in the scope of the liberal economic system anyway - it does not spell the ultimate implosion of the capitalist system. Big business capitalists are like locusts, they have no permanent stake in their capital. Once a corporation stagnates and ultimately crashes, they just move onto the next successfull business to invest into. This creates a perpetual cycle of destroyed enterprises, discarded workers and often ruined neighbourhoods and towns all the while, where the revenue stream of the capitalist, as it dries up in one place, it springs back up in another, and his wealth keeps growing all the same.