Therefore it is possible to empathize with both ends of the spectrum. Certainly stable CEO succession can build continuity and shared purpose within a corporation and that is why corporations with long time frames such as oil companies tend to recruit their CEOs from within (Ahrendts, 2013). But not all industries work the same. Some industries are different because high turnover with CEOs is expected and can substantially help a company to pursue greater revenue streams. Therefore, I believe both answers are right depending on the particular situation. Many cultures need superstar business figures to promote the idea that hard work and dedication can pay off. An entrepreneur that creates a breakthrough product should be rewarded for doing so; but at what cost. CEOs have the potential to influence the company's bottom line; as a result they should be compensated as such. Yet at the same time, inequality in positions...

If you follow this trend to its logical conclusion then it could be the case that inequality would become so great that there would be an overthrow of the government. Therefore, although markets can be efficient, they are not infallible. Inequality is an issue that will have to be dealt with somehow. Although some inequality is definitely healthy, the current rates of inequality are testing the boundaries; especially in a democracy.
Works Cited

Ahrendts, a. (2013, March 14). The Experts: Do Companies Spend Too Much on 'Superstar' CEOs? Retrieved from the Wall Steet Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578358703100458408.html

Anderson, S., Cavangh, J., Collins, C., Lapham, M.P., & Kay, I.T. (2007). Are U.S. CEOs Paid More than They Deserve? Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Management, pp. 63-85.