Of course one expects marketing mental diseases to be effective! 'Its not your fault, take a pill and it will all go away' certainly has mass emotional appeal. However, the article is not too convincing about the methodology of excluding marketing expenses.

    First - and I know that I'm going to hear about this from some people - you might assume that different companies are putting different things under the banner of R&D for accounting purposes. But there's a limit to how much of that you can do. Remember, there's a separate sales and marketing budget, too, of course, and people never get tired of pointing out that it's even larger than the R&D one. So how inflated can these figures be?

Not particularly powerful evidence here: a vague notion of a limit, and a rhetorical question. Corporate accounting statements are generally only accountable to the board of directors, who might be perfectly happy with pushing the limit on creative accounting while the stock goes up. When aimed at investors other than the board, and especially when used by citizens attempting to assess the social value of institutions, accounting statements are better treated as marketing materials themselves.

We can discuss evidence when the CFOs of these corporations open their daily work to a public VNC session.