英语高手 帮忙翻译一下 谢谢了！！！！！！！！

Question

Harmonization or Hegemony?
It has also been said that the robustness of U.S. GAAP has exerted so much pressure on the international accounting standards-setting process that the United States was effectively attempting to make its GAAP the predominant accounting influence in other countries. The continued use of U.S. GAAP is surely not aimed at creating either accounting hegemony or accounting isolation. It is simply a sovereign right to continue to use a set of national standards that not only are high in quality and robust per se, but have earned the respect and admiration of being the most stringent in the world.
One approach to convergence would be to allow the use of IFRS while not making either IFRS or U.S. GAAP mandatory. This would necessarily allow corporations to use U.S. GAAP for domestic reporting purposes, and to use IFRS should they desire to use across borders. An alternative would be for the AICPA to recognize IFRS used by private domestic companies as an Other Comprehensive Basis of Accounting (OCBOA). Used this way, IFRS would give companies added flexibility in their financial accounting reporting. Additionally, this option could narrow the familiarity gap between U. S. GAAP and IFRS.
Previous research on international accounting harmonization has taken the form of descriptive, analytical, or subjective discussions of the merits and demerits of harmonization. Some studies have shown that diversity influences international financial decision-making. Other studies suggest that harmonization is inevitable and that the mutual recognition of accounting standards with some benchmark, such as a set of international standards, could be the tool needed to harmonize accounting standards and principles.
Yet other studies do not consider the harmonization of international accounting standards as a universally acceptable goal, because accounting principles developed from the interaction of accounting practices and theory with each country's unique social, political, and economic environments. While some authors have posited that harmonization would make sense only if the accounting systems of different countries were very similar, such as those of the United States and Canada, others have argued that because global capital markets have flourished in the absence of any uniform accounting standards, any attempt to impose such standards would be an exercise in futility. Some have asked whether innovation in disclosure occurs in the financial reporting behavior of enterprises dependent on foreign resources, and whether enterprises in the international marketplace would make disclosures contrary to the secretiveness of their home culture.

Answer 1

协调或霸权？
有人还说鲁棒性美国公认会计原则已施加因此多对中美两国有效地试图使及其公认会计原则的国际会计标准设置过程的压力主要会计在其它国家的影响。 美国公认会计原则的继续的使用肯定不旨在创建会计霸权或会计分离。 它只是一个主权国权继续使用一套不只是高质量的国家标准及稳健本身，但已得到尊重和欣赏的最严格世界。
收敛一种方法是要允许时不 IFRS 或美国公认会计原则强制性 IFRS 的使用。 这一定会允许用于报告家用的美国公认会计原则，并使用 IFRS 他们应想使用跨越国界的公司。 另一种方法会认识到 IFRS 用私人国内公司作为一个其他综合基础的会计 (OCBOA) 注册。 使用这种方式，IFRS 会添加的公司在其财政的会计报表的灵活性。 此外，此选项可以缩小范围美国公认会计原则与 IFRS 熟悉差距。
国际会计协调以前研究已采取描述性、 分析，或主观讨论的优点和缺点的协调的形式。 一些研究表明多样性对国际金融决策的影响。 其他研究建议是无可避免的协调及会计准则的一些基准，如符合国际标准的一组互认可能是该工具需要协调会计标准和原则。
但其它研究并不认为国际会计准则的协调作为一个普遍接受的目标因为会计原则发展从每个国家的独特的社会、 政治，和经济环境与相互作用的会计实务和理论。 时协调会懂只当不同国家的会计制度是非常类似如美国和加拿大，别人辩，因为全球资本市场有蓬勃发展在没有任何统一的会计准则的情况下，有 posited 一些作者，施加这些标准的任何尝试会一个在徒劳无功。 一些已要求披露创新中的企业依赖外国资源，财务报告行为的发生是否和企业在国际市场上是否会相反，他们家庭的文化的 secretiveness 披露。