Question

求翻译一篇关于会计精神的英文学术报纸的文章,如好定追加

文章截图了,哪位高手帮忙啊!!
明显的糊弄的 明显的翻译工具翻的就省省吧!高手帮忙啊 翻好了追加分啊!

Answer 1

鄙人是会计专业，英语水平良好，希望可以帮到你。

----------------------------------------------------------
鉴于楼主这份文章并不完整，在下自己找到了原文，并按原文翻译
----------------------------------------------------------
The spirit of accounting

BY PAUL B.W. MILLER AND PAUL R. BAHNSON

(accounting today August 17-31,2009)

=========================================================
It's not just academics who see value in fair value accounting,“We are often accused of being wild-eyed academics unaware of how things work in the real world.”
----Paul B. W. Miller is a professor at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and Paul R. Bahnson is a professor at Boise State University. The authors" views are not necessarily those of their institutions.
=========================================================

Over the years, we have written many columns describing the limitations of the traditional accounting model that has at its core a fixation on recording assets at their acquisition cost and then systematically depreciating or amortizing them using unverifiable suppositions and speculations about asset life, salvage value and trends in value change over the years.

Adding insult to injury is the portfolio of alternative depreciation methods that can be used to produce highly different patterns of calculated book value changes and recorded income statement impacts over an asset's assumed life. We know the results of these preconceived mathematical operations are unreliable, nay, totally meaningless, because they are not observations of real changes in an asset's value. We have long supported fair-value reporting that transparently reports real factual values and changes in them. These facts are not only logically more useful because they're reliable, but they're also more profitable for managers and auditors because they are demanded by statement users.

Every now and again we read something that provides new insights on these issues, usually as the result of looking at things from a different perspective. That was the case recently when we heard from a reader, Jeff Koch, a CPA from Concordia, Kan. Jeff shared with us his perspective on fair value accounting and encouraged us to keep making our points. From his experience working with clients, Jeff is painfully aware of the traditional system's obvious, even glaring, limitations, and the huge benefits that come from reporting fair values.

Having found Jeff's discussion both clear and persuasive, we decided to let it speak for itself. Here is what Jeff had to say:

"I operate a CPA firm in an area with a focus in production agriculture. Many of our clients are required to prepare or have prepared fair market value balance sheets for their lenders in connection with a renewal of their farm operating note agreements and in connection with obtaining term notes for financing equipment and land on an annual basis. The lenders for these agricultural businesses have long ago learned that a well-cared-for 1967 John Deere 4020 tractor is fully depreciated for tax and book purposes, but still likely has a fair market value equal to or greater than its original cost. Also, these lenders understand that a piece of land purchased by a farmer in 1984 at $500 per acre is today worth four times that much in our area and has additional value to lend against and an economic carrying cost for the farmer far beyond its GAAP basis. Therefore, the financial statements that we prepare based on GAAP or the tax basis of accounting are meaningless, while fair value accounting has significant meaning.

"Naturally, some of these clients wish to have us assist with preparing these financial statements. Basically, in order to issue a report, we have to issue meaningless financial statements based on GAAP or Other Comprehensive Basis of Accounting (such as tax basis), then provide the financial statements on the estimated current value of the assets, liabilities and equity as supplemental information. As an alternative, we have issued financial statements based on estimated current value as a prescribed form. In both cases, we have to include disclaimers in the accountants' reports that cause lenders to question the information. In addition, the information in the GAAP financial statements often leads to questions and unnecessary analysis by lenders or other outside investors.
"My peer review firm and I have often argued this issue. Our peer reviewer has said to me, 'I wish my banker would lend to me on market value.' My response was ... 'If you had a smart banker, he would!'

"Therefore, I urge you to use your platform to keep up the fight and I wholeheartedly agree with your position! [The acceptability of value-based statements] is a very important issue to those of us working with agricultural clients."

Compelling words, indeed. We want to make three points about them.
First, we are often accused of being wild-eyed academics unaware of how things work in the "real world." The usual rant goes that fair values are great in theory but impractical and unreliable on Main Street. Any who have voiced those sentiments need to find another ax to grind. Jeff is a bona fide accountant, working on the front lines of practice, not up in an ivory tower. Yet he still comes down on this issue the same way we do. So much for fair values being academic pie in the sky.

What we see as Jeff's difference from other CPAs is that he is concerned about his clients' needs for providing useful information to lenders. This is quite different from those who are obviously eager to manage their own costs and risks in preparing or auditing the financial statements, instead of maximizing the benefit to the preparers and users alike. Their attitude seems to be that the users ought to gratefully lick up the crumbs and just be happy they're getting anything out of management. What a travesty!

Second, some will surely find merit in Jeff's words but try to constrain their impact by concluding that his clients operate in a specialized industry such that his conclusions don't hold water elsewhere. Sure, land and farm equipment are instrumental to the production process in agriculture. While these sorts of assets may not be as material in other endeavors, we think one would be hard-pressed to find any situations where fixed assets are wholly irrelevant. Thus, his observations carry over, hands down and without compromise. Whether these assets are crucial or only moderately important, GAAP financial statements provided by any business that don't truthfully track the changes in their actual values are fictional at best and perhaps even fraudulent, because the managers and auditors know the information has no connection with reality.

Third, some oppose using fair values large ly because doing so is a profound change in the way things have been done. After all, they ask, if the traditional model is so flawed, why has it been used for so many years? With hindsight, many things that seem perfectly reasonable at the time take on a completely different posture when viewed from the present. For example, Paul Bahnson toured a palace in Potsdam on a recent trip to Germany. The tour guide commented on 18th century thinking when he described how back then even the elite considered frequent bathing to be unhealthy. Of course, we now know that opinion is nothing short of harebrained, even though it enjoyed vast popularity. Likewise, we believe that at some point in the near future people will look back at the state of today's GAAP with all that reliance on past events and allocated costs and will first chuckle and then invoke the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
As we described in our previous column, much is going on that clearly shows fair value accounting is coming. It's about time, as far as we're concerned, and thanks to Jeff Koch for providing more evidence about why it's so necessary.

He also makes it quite clear that stubborn resistance from the accounting establishment is irrational. It simply makes no sense to force clients to pay for GAAP financial statements that they literally hope no one will ever try to use. It looks to us like those who created and maintain this bizarre and pointless waste of time and talent are the ones who live in the ivory tower, not us, and certainly not Jeff and the many others out there in America's heartland.

Paul B. W. Miller is a professor at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and Paul R. Bahnson is a professor at Boise State University. The authors' views are not necessarily those of their institutions. Reach them at paulandpaulqfr.biz.
------------------------------------------------------------------
原文可于webcpa站搜到.请自行百度。以下为翻译。
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

会计的精神
保罗B.W.希勒 (Paul B.W. Hiller), 保罗R.巴恩逊 (Paul R. Bahnson)
[今日会计 八月 17-31，2009]
==================================================================
（我们）不仅仅是在公允价值会计里看到价值的学者，“我们也是经常被指责成不了解事情在真实世界中如何运作的过激的学者。”
------ [保罗B.W.希勒 (Paul B.W. Hiller) 是位于科罗拉多瀑布的科罗拉多大学的一名教授，保罗R.巴恩逊 (Paul R. Bahnson)则是博伊西州立大学的一名教授。两位作者的观点不必然代表他们所在院校的观点。]
==================================================================

过去的很多年里，我们写了很多的专栏来描述传统会计模型的局限性，其核心为一成不变的以资产的购置成本来记账，然后用未经验证的假设和推测得出的资产寿命、残值以及经年的价值变化趋势，来折旧或摊销。

雪上加霜的是折旧算法的各种可选方案之间可能会导致计算出来的账面价值改变和计入在资产假设寿命内对损益表的影响的方式大不相同。我们知道这些建立在假设上的数学运算的结果是不可靠的，甚至是，毫无意义的。因为它们不是记录资产真实价值变化的观测数据。我们其实拥有长期以来受到支持的公允价值报告，来透明地记述资产的真正的实际价值及其变化。这些事实不仅仅逻辑上更有用，因为它们更可靠，而且它们对经理或审计人员来说更有益，因为财务报表的使用者需要它们。

有时我们读到一些关于这些问题的新洞见，时常是因为从一个不同的角度看待这些事。我们最近收到的一名读者的来信就是这种情况，杰夫·柯赫（Jeff Koch），一名来自科罗拉多的注册会计师，这位肯·杰夫同我们分享了他在公允价值会计上的观点，并鼓励我们继续坚持我们的观点。从他同他的客户工作的经验来看，杰夫痛苦地意识到传统的会计系统有着明显，甚至是十分刺眼的局限性，同时，报告公允价值会带来极大的好处。

考虑到杰夫自己的论述又清楚又有说服力，我们决定让这个论述自己来说明自己。以下是杰夫所说的话：

“我经营一个专注于农业生产领域的注册会计师公司。很多我们的客户被要求或者自己要为和他们农场运作债务相关以及和金融工具、土地的年度期票相关的债权人，准备公允市场价值下的资产负债表。这些做农业相关生意的债权人早就明白著名的1967 John Deere 4020型拖拉机出于税务和账面目的要全部折旧（没有残值），但是它仍旧有可能有等于或者高于原来成本的公允市场价值。同时，这些债权人也明白，一个农民在1984年以500美元每英亩的价格买的一块地可以值我们今天的四倍价钱，可以抵押贷款更多的钱，远高于对于那个农民来说的一般公认会计准则GAAP下的现存经济价值。所以我们基于GAAP准则或者税务会计的财务报表是毫无意义的，而公允价值会计有着重要意义。

“一些客户很自然地希望我们帮助他们准备这些财务报表。基本上，为了发布报表，我们必须先发布基于GAAP或者其他综合会计准则下（如税务会计）毫无意义的财务报表，然后提供对资产、债务和股东权益的当前估价作为补充信息。有一个替代方案，就是我们发布基于当前估价的财务报表作为规定格式。在这两种情形下，我们都必须包含免责声明于会计报告中，（因为）债权人会质疑里面的信息。另外，基于GAAP的财务报表里的信息经常会导致债权人或者其他外界投资者的疑问和不必要的分析。”

“我的同行评议公司和我经常争论这个问题。我们的同行评议员对我说过：‘我希望我的放贷人可以借点市场价值给我。’我的回答是。。。‘如果你有个聪明的放债人，他会的！’”

“因此，我催促你们用你们的平台来继续战斗，而我会全心全意的支持你们的。[基于价值的报表的可接受性]，对我们这些和农业产业的客户打交道的人来说，是很重要的问题。”

确实，（这是多么）令人信服的文字啊。我们想要从中指出三点。

第一，我们也经常被指责成不了解在事物在“真实世界”中如何运作的过激的学者。这些数落声一般这样说到，公允价值华而不实，在理论上很好，但在主要商业应用中既不实用也不可靠。任何发出那些感慨（对此攻击）的人现在得去找另一把斧子去磨得快一点了。（因为有了）杰夫，这个名副其实的会计，他在第一线务实，而非高高的位于象牙塔里。但他依旧同我们一样仔细审视这个问题。公允价值作为天上的学术画饼的时间已经够久了，（是时候把它放到会计务实里去了）。

我们从杰夫和其他注册会计师的不同中看到的是他关心他的客户给债权人提供有用信息的需求，从而最大化对（报表的）准备者和使用者的好处。这和那些显然渴求用准备或审计财务报表来操纵自己的成本和风险的公司大不相同。他们的态度好象是，（报表的）使用者应该感激的，快乐的舔面包屑，（因为）他们正在从管理层中获得着一些小利益。这是真是滑稽可笑！

第二，有些人肯定会发现杰夫的话的价值，但却会试着想到杰夫他的客户只在一个特定的行业，进而归结他的话没有普适性，从而局限这些话的影响。确实，土地，农业工具是只是农业生产过程中的手段和工具。而这类资产在其他产业里可能没有实质影响。我们想，总没有人会说在任何情况下固定资产是彻底无关的。因此，他的观察发现，能够横向借鉴，向下延续，不需要任何妥协。不管这些资产是十分重要的还是仅仅中等重要的，那些不真实地记录他们资产实际价值变化的公司提供的GAAP财务报表最多虚构的，或许甚至是欺诈的，因为经理们和审计者知道这些信息和实际没有任何联系。

第三，有些人反对使用公允价值多是因为这么做会对原先干活的方法有一个深远的影响。毕竟，他们会问，如果传统的会计模型这么漏洞百出，为什么它会被用这么久？后见之明地看来，很多事情在当时看来似乎是完美的，但在现在看来是一幅完全不同的样子。比如，保罗在最近的德国之旅中游历了位于波茨坦的宫殿。导游评价道在十八世纪那个时候，想想那才多久以前，那时甚至精英阶层都认为经常洗澡是不健康的。当然，我们现在知道了，欠缺考虑的观点其实什么都不是，哪怕它广为流传。类似的，我们相信在不久的将来人们回顾今天的全部依赖于过去事件和成本摊铺的GAAP准则的状况，会首先嗤笑，然后爆出一句雷尔夫•瓦尔德•爱默生说过的话：“食古不化就是没有脑袋的怪物。”

就像我们在先前的专栏里说的那样，多数正在发生的事情明确表明公允价值会计要到来了。对我们来说，只是时间问题，同时感谢杰夫•柯赫，因为他为公允价值会计的必要性提供了更多的证据。

他也清楚的表明，来自会计公司的顽固阻挠是不理智的。仅仅强迫顾客为他们实在希望没有人会去用的GAAP财务报告埋单是毫无意义的。在我们看来，那些创造并维护这个怪物同时没有意义地浪费着时间和才智的人就是那些活在象牙塔里的人，不是我们，也不是杰夫以及外面很多的美国商业中心地带的其他人。
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

以上就是原文的翻译，采取直译，意译加补译并用的方法。
如果楼主有其他关于会计，法律的问题，亦可百度Hi我。

希望以上翻译可以帮到你。

Answer 2

试着翻译了一下，可能不很准确。
The spirit of accounting
BY PAUL B.W. MILLER AND PAUL R. BAHNSON
(accounting today August 17-31,2009)
It's not just academics who see value in fair value accounting
“We are often accused of being wild-eyed academics unaware of how things work in the real world”
Paul B. W. Miller is a professor at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and Paul R. Bahnson is a professor at Boise State University. The authors" views are not necessarily those of their institutions. Reach them at paulandpaul@qfr.bi2.
会计精神
作者：PAUL B.W. MILLER和PAUL R. BAHNSON
（今日会计，8月17-31,2009）
不仅仅是学者看到公允价值会计中的价值。
“我们常常被责难为极端的学者，不知道事情如何在现实世界中运作”
PAUL B.W. MILLER是位于Colorado Springs的科罗拉多大学的教授，和Paul R. Bahnson是博伊西州立大学的教授。作者们的意见未必代表其机构。

Over the years, we have written many columns describing the limitations of the traditional accounting model that has at its core a fixation on recording assets at their acquisition cost and then systematically depreciating or amortizing them using unverifiable suppositions and speculations about asset life, salvage value and trends in value change over the years.
Adding insult to injury is the portfolio of alternative depreciation methods that can be used to produce highly different patterns of calculated book value changes and recorded income statement impacts over an asset's assumed life. We know the results of these preconceived mathematical operations are unreliable, nay, totally meaningless, because they are not observations of real changes in an asset's value. We have long supported fairvalue reporting that transparently reports real factual values and changes in them. These facts are not only logically more usefiil because they're reliable, but they're also more profitable for managers and auditors because they are demanded by statement users.
多年来，我们已在诸多栏目中描述了传统的会计模式的局限性，其核心是一种固定模式，即记录资产的购置成本，然后按照关于资产周期、残值和多年的价值变化等无法证实的假定和思索来进行系统的折旧或摊销。
更糟的是替代折旧方法组合，可用于对一项假定周期的资产做出不同的帐面计算值变化并且记录资产的收益影响。我们知道这些先入为主的数学运算的结果是不可靠的，不仅如此，毫无意义，因为它们不是资产价值的真正变化记录。我们长期以来一直支持公允价值报告，因为它能透明地汇报真实价值及其变化。这些事实不仅在逻辑上因为他们是可靠的，所以更有用，而且他们也更有利于管理人员和审计人员，因为帐目使用者要求这样。
Every now and again we read something that provides new insights on these issues, usually as the result of looking at things from a different perspective. That was the case recently when we heard from a reader, (eff Koch, a CPA from Concordia, Kan. Jeff shared with us his perspective on fair value accounting and encouraged us to keep making our points. From his experience working with clients, Jeff is painfully aware of the traditional system's obvious, even glaring, limitations, and the huge benefits that come from reporting fair values.
Having found Jeff's discussion both clear and persuasive, we decided to let it speak for itself. Here is what Jeff had to say:
不时的，我们读到一些就这种问题提出的新见解，通常是从不同的角度看待事物。下面是最近我们从一个读者Jeff Koch那听到的，他是一名来自堪萨斯州Concordia的注册会计师，Jeff Koch与我们分享了他对公允价值会计的看法，并鼓励我们作出我们的论点。从他与客户的经验中，Jeff Koch深深地认识到传统体制的明显局限性，甚至超明显，以及报告公允价值带来的巨大利益。
发现杰夫的讨论非常清楚和有说服力，我们决定引用他自己的原话。这里是杰夫说的话：
"I operate a CPA firm in an area with a focus in production agriculture. Many of our clients are required to prepare or have prepared fair market value balance sheets for their lenders in connection with a renewal of their farm operating note agreements and in connection with obtaining term notes for financing equipment and land on an annual basis, fhe lenders for these agricultural businesses have long ago learned that a well-cared-for 1967John Deere 4020 tractor is fully depreciated for tax and book purposes, but still likely has a fair market value equal to or greater than its original cost. Also, these lenders understand that a piece of land purchased by a farmer in 1984 at $500 per acre is today worth four tinies that much in our area and has additional value to lend against and an economic carrying cost for the farmer far beyond its GAAP basis. Tlierefore, the financial statements tbat we prepare based on GAAP or the tax basis of accounting are meaningless, while fair value accounting has significant meaning.
“我在一个重点生产农产品的地区经营会计师事务所。我们的许多客户都需要准备或已经准备，在上年基础上，提供给他们的出贷方一份与其农场操作说明协议更新相连系的公平市场价值资产负债表，并且负债表与融资设备及土地的获得注意事项有关联。这些农业商业贷款人早就知道，一个保养良好的1967年的约翰迪尔4020拖拉机为税务和订购目的全面折旧，但仍可能有一个公平市场价值等于或高于其原来的成本。此外，这些贷款人明白，在我们地区，由一个农民于1984年为每英亩500美元购买的一块土地现在值四倍以上，并有比一般公认会计原则基础高的出货附加价值以及农民经济承担成本。所以，我们基于通用会计准则或会计税基础之上的财务报表是毫无意义的，而公允价值会计具有重大意义。
"Naturally, some of these clients wish to have us assist with preparing these financial statements. Basically, in order to issue a report, we have to issue meaningless financial statements based on GAAP or Other Comprehensive Basis of Accounting {such as tax basis), then provide the financial statements
on the estimated current value of the assets, liabilities and equity as supplemental information. As an alternative, we have issued financial statements based nn estimated current value as a prescribed form. In both cases, we have to include disclaimers in the accountants' reports that cause lenders to question
the information. In addition, the information in the GAAP financial statements often leads to questions and unnecessary analysis by lenders or other outside investors.
“当然，这些客户希望得到一些帮助去准备这些财务报表。基本上，为了发布一个报告，我们要发出基于通用会计准则或其他综合会计基础（如计税依据为基础）的无意义的财务报表，然后提供基于资产现值的财务报表、负债和权益作为补充信息。作为替代方案，我们已经发布基于现值的财务报表作为规定格式。在这两种情况下，我们必须包括在会计报告中不承诺而导致贷款人提问的信息。此外，在公认会计准则财务报表的信息往往导致贷款人或其他外部投资者提出问题和不必要的分析。
"My peer review firm and I have often argued this issue. Our peer reviewer has said to me, 'I wish my banker would lend to me on market value.' My response was... 'If you had a smart banker, he would ! '
"Therefore, I urge you to use your platform to keep up the fight and 1 wholeheartedly agree with your position! [Ihe acceptability of value-based statements] is a very important issue to those of us working with agricultural clients."
“我的公司评论同行和我经常争论这个问题。我们的同行审稿员曾对我说，'我希望我的银行会基于市场价值借货给我‘。我的回答是...'如果你有一个聪明的银行家，他会的！'
“因此，我恳请您用您的平台继续争取，并且我完全同意你的立场！对我们这些与农业客户合作的人们来说，[价值为基础报表的可接受性]是一个非常重要的问题，。”
Compelling words, indeed. We want to make three points about them.
First, we are often accused of being wildeyed academics unaware of how things work in the "real world." Tlie usual rant goes that fair values are great in theoiy but impractical and unreliable on Main Street. Any who have voiced those sentiments need to find another ax to grind. Jeff is a bona fide accountant, working on the front lines of practice, not up In an ivory tower. Yet he still comes down on tliis issue the same way we do. So much for fair values being academic pie in the sky.
引人注目的话，确实。我们想对其做三点说明：
首先，我们常常指责极端的学者不知道事情如何在现实世界中运作。通常言论是说公平价值理论上重要但不切实际。任何道出这种敏感问题的人都是别有用心。Jeff是一个真正的会计师，工作实践在第一线，没有成长于一个象牙塔。但他仍然是同我们具有同样的方式来对待此问题。公允价值不应该被当成天空中的学术馅饼。
What we see as |eff's difference from other CPAs is that he is concerned about his clients' needs for providing useful information to lenders. iTiis is quite different from those who are obviously eager to manage tiieir own costs and risks in preparing or auditing the financial statements, instead of maximizing the benefit to tbe preparers and users alike.Their attitude seems to be that the users
ought to gratefully lick up the crumbs and just be happy they're getting anything out of management. What a travesty!
我们认为Jeff与其他会计师不同的是，他对他的客户的需要关注，向贷款人提供有用的信息。 这完全不同于那些只着急管理自己的成本和风险，急于编制或审核财务报表，而不是最大限度地造福准备者和使用者.他们的态度似乎是，用户应该感激涕零，只是很高兴他们逃脱了一点管理。真是滑稽！

Second, some will surely find merit in Jeff's words but try to constrain their impact by concluding that his clients operate in a specialized industry such that his conclusions duii't hold water elsewhere. Sure, land and farm equipment are instrumental to the production process In agriculture. While these sorts of assets may not be as material in other endeavors, we think one would be hard-pressed to find any situations where fixed assets are wholly irrelevant. Thus, his observations carry over, hands down and without compromise. Whether these assets are crucial or only moderately important, GAAP financial statements provided by any business that don't truthfully track the changes in their actual values are fictional at best and perhaps even fraudulent, because the managers and auditors know the information has no connection with reality.
其次，一些人一定会找到杰夫话的优点，但设法限制他的影响，因为他从事特殊的行业，他的结论在其它地方站不住脚。当然，土地和农业设备仪器是用在农业生产过程。虽然这种类型的资产不能作为其他工作的材料，我们认为人们很难找到任何情况下是完全不相干的固定资产。因此，他的观测可以传送、结转而且毫不妥协。无论这些资产是至关重要的，或只有轻微重要的，任何商业提供的通用会计准则做出的不能反映其真实价值变化的金融帐目都是虚构的，甚至是欺诈的，因为管理人员和审计人员了解这些信息与现实无联系。

Third, some oppose using fair values largely because doing so is a profound change in the way things have been done. Alter all, they ask, ifthe traditional model is so flawed, why has it been used for so many years? With hindsight, many things that seem perfectly reasonable at the time take on a completely different posture when viewed from tiie present. For example, Paul Bahnson toured a palace in Potsdam on a recent trip to Germany. The tour guide commented on 18th century thinking when he descrihed how hack then even the elite considered frequent hathing to be unhealthy.Of course, we now know that opinion is notliing short of harebrained, even though it enjoyed vast popularity. Likewise, we helieve that at some point in the near future people will look back at the state
of today's GAAP with all that reliance on past events and allocated costs and will first chuckle and then
invoke the words of Ralph Waldo Hmerson: "A foolish consistency is Ihe hobgohlin of little minds."
第三，一些人反对使用公允价值，主要是因为这样做要在已经做事情的方式上有深刻的变化。他们问，传统模式有这样的缺陷，但为何它被使用了这么多年？事后看来，很多事情在当时看来是完全合理的，但现在却是完全不同的状态。例如，Paul Bahnson最近访问参观一个德国的波茨坦宫殿。导游评论一个在18世纪的想法，他说当时多么可笑，就是精英都认为人有必要不是很健康。我们现在知道，认为是观点也绝不是没有不轻率的，即使它范围很广。同样，我们相信在不久的将来人们将回顾现在的通用会计准则，它的过去的事件和分配成本，会先笑起来，然后援引Ralph Waldo Hmerson的话：“一个愚蠢的一致性是小小脑袋的怪物。”
As we descrihed in our previous column, much is going on that clearly shows fair value accounting is coming, it's about time, as far as we're concerned, and thanks to leff Koch for providing more evidence ahout why it's so necessary.
He also makes it quite clear that stubborn resistance from the accounting establishment is irrational. It simply makes no sense to force clients to pay for GAAP financial statements that they literally hope no one will ever try to use. It looks to us like those who created and maintain this bizarre and pointless waste of time and talent are the ones who live in the ivory tower, not us, and certainly not leff and the many others out there in America's heartland. AT

正如我们在以前的专栏所描述的，更多发生的事清楚地显示了公允价值会计已经到来，它需要时间，就我们而言，感谢Jeff Koch提供了更多的证据，证明它为什么如此有必要。
他还使其相当明确，顽强抵抗新的会计制度的确立是不合理的。强制客户端来按字面上希望没有人会尝试使用的通用会计准则的财务帐目来支付是没有意义。目前我们看来，喜欢的是那些创造和维持这种怪异的、浪费时间和才华的、生活在象牙塔里的人们，而不是我们，更不是Jeff和在美国的中心地带的人们。

看了看，比较长。

给你指出个错误，后边连接错了，边上了另一篇文章。

正确的应该如下：

The tour guide commented on 18th century在这里让你看第17页
See SPIRIT on 17

Spirit
FROM PAGE 16 上接16页，下面即是你文章的后边部分
thinking when he descrihed how
hack then even the elite considered
frequent hathing to be unhealthy.
Of course, we now know that opinion
is notliing short of harebrained,
even though it enjoyed vast popularity.
Likewise, we helieve that
at some point in the near future
people will look back at the state
of today's GAAP with all that reliance
on past events and allocated
costs and will first chuckle and then
invoke the words of Ralph Waldo
Hmerson: "A foolish consistency is
Ihe hobgohlin of little minds."
As we descrihed in our previous
column, much is going on that
clearly shows fair value accounting
is coming, it's about time, as far as
we're concerned, and thanks to leff
Koch for providing more evidence
ahout why it's so necessary.
He also makes it quite clear
that stubborn resistance from the
accounting establishment is irrational.
It simply makes no sense
to force clients to pay for GAAP financial
statements that they literally
hope no one will ever try to use.
It looks to us like those who created
and maintain this bizarre and
pointless waste of time and talent
are the ones who live in the ivory
tower, not us, and certainly not leff
and the many others out there in
America's heartland. AT

Answer 3

等着关闭吧