I am merely saying, if you fire a CEO because of, say, him having a relationship with an underling, you are saying: "there are arbitrary things more important than profitability".

I am not sure it makes sense given why companies exist in the capitalist system. Stockholders, I'd think, on average care more about the returns less whether the CEO is a likable character.

The real problem of course is potentially illegal behavior, but having a relationship is nothing. Firing a very successful CEO over this is imbecillic.

> arbitrary things

I'm sure Jenson knew sleeping with his direct reports was wrong. And that plenty of CEOs got fired for that. Nothing arbitrary about that.

Even in purest capitalist sense, romantic relationships cloud judgement and point at a possibility (inevitability?) that people in question (CEOs, managers, owners, board members) will do that again thus increasing the risk to the business.

This ignores the direct consequences like "worse" employees getting promoted (affecting business) or put in charge, or like in this case, potential national security issues.

Pause and listen to yourself for a while. Don't you think all business leaders and nation leaders have relationships interfering with their lives? Not the least family issues with their children and spouses. Should all CEOs be psychopaths living according to Mr Burns advice? That was a joke in a cartoon, not something to model society after.

I read it as sarcastic pointing out the hypocrisy, and that they're fully in support of free will for anyone to pursue relationships they want at all levels. You could disagree with the latter, but the starting point doesn't seem like what you suggest