英语高手 帮忙翻译一下一篇英语文章 谢谢哦

A Single Set of High-Quality Written Standards of Financial Reporting Applied to AU Companies (at Least the Publicly Traded Ones) in the World Will Improve Financial Reporting by Making Financial Reports More Comparable, and Thus Assist Investors and Other Users of Financial Statements in Making Better Decisions
There is little doubt that investors prefer high-quality standards to low. However, to impart an operational meaning to this preference, one should know the characteristics of a high-quality accounting standard. How can one tell the quality of a standard? The length, specificity, generality, readability, and reliability are some of the possibilities that come to mind, but there are many others. Is it possible to put two standards, say those written by the FASB and the IASB, side-byside and obtain some reasonable agreement across experts about their quality? To the best of my knowledge, neither the quality nor methods of measuring the quality of a standard have been specified or explained. A study of the qualitative characteristics of standards does not give us much hope that they have been identified in a useful way (Joyce et al. 1982). Much rhetoric about high-quality standards appears in speeches and press releases, but surprisingly for organizations dedicated to telling the world how to measure things, no measure of quality of a standard is available. A car manufacturer cannot tout the quality of its parts for long without backing it up with substance. In comparison, measurement of the quality of accounting standards appears to be treated with remarkable indifference.
Facilitating comparability of financial statements is an important element of the Accounting Consensus. High-quality standards based on principles instead of rules are supposed to help generate financial reports that are more useful by reason of being more comparable across firms, industries, and countries. This high-sounding goal deserves a moment of reflection. A general principle is concise and calls for judgment in its application, which must necessarily vary across individuals and situations, giving rise to greater variability in applications man a more detailed rule-presumably calling for less judgment-will generate. How and why should one expect that a resort to principies instead of rules would result in greater comparability?6 The basis of this presumed insight of the Accounting Consensus remains a mystery; given its centrality, it is worth exploring further with an example.