As someone ignorant of accounting law, it's not obvious to me why he's being obtuse, and just saying he is doesn't add anything to the conversation. In the othe

As someone ignorant of accounting law, it's not obvious to me why he's being obtuse, and just saying he is doesn't add anything to the conversation. In the other article, he goes on to say "The people who say that this is due to the fact that they are investing in building up their business are showing their ignorance. Reinvesting and profits are two separate issues. Profits reflect the difference between revenues and costs on current business operations. These can all be used for investment in expansion (as opposed to being paid out as dividends and share buybacks), but they should still show up as profits. Amazon doesn't show profits or at least not much. This means that it costs them as much to run their business as they are getting from customers in revenue. That is not viable as a long-term model even if they are always expanding." Both statements seem like reasonable statements to me (who is, again, ignorant of the law). Is he wrong? Could you expand on why he's wrong?