While it looks that way, and in many ways it's true, even with a majority stake you can not simply do as you please. If you take a 100 million dollar company and you own 51 million of it and I own 49 million of it; do you really think I'm going to let you crash the company? or do you think I'm going to protect my 49 million? There are laws, many of them, that can be used to block the actions of majority stake holders from destroying companies and other peoples investments. In most cases (see the 1980's raids) where someone gains control of a company to break it down and sell the parts, it is to the financial benefit to the majority stakeholders and so also a financial benefit to the minority stakeholders.
So, the President of the United States -filthy educated capitalist that he his- made 2.8 million in book sales royalties alone. If we are to cap CEO's pay to that of the Presidents, are we to take the 2.8 million into account? 2.8 million + 400,000?
However the good people of the USA, did not fund Obama to write these books. I imagine he wrote them in his 'spare' time. If a CEO had a story worth reading, then he or she could very well do the same, as long as there was no breach of contract or conflict of interest. I reckon a book about what top execs really spend their expense accounts on, would be a real eye-opener!
