ktm1190:帮帮忙翻译一下啊！！！好人们谢谢

Until recently the lines drawn in this debate were clear. Those arguing that economic fundamentals will again prove relevant tended to be economists, like O'Rear, who were not directly involved in the markets. Those casting fundamentals aside tended to be investors or traders - anyone in search of a "story" - an explanation for why share indexes keep heading upward.
Now things are not so simple. A number of economists - at universities, in leading investment houses, in market research firms, at policy institutes, and even at the U.S. Federal Reserve - are adding intellectual weight to the view in the markets.
They are beginning to argue that long-accepted methods of measuring economic trends - rising global imbalances, falling savings rates, record liquidity flows and the like - must be rethought and possibly replaced to reflect new economic conditions.
Chief among these trends is the continuing increase in the U.S. current account deficit. How much does this mean, these economists ask, given that U.S. assets are more globalized than ever and production abroad often goes uncounted in the bottom line at home?
It means plenty, the traditionalists assert. Even as investment and production are globalized, an obstinate deficit in the accounts of the No. 1 economy remains a potential source of instability. "Six years ago we said profits don't matter," said O'Rear, referring to the prevailing market view at the height of the dot-com bubble. "Now we're invited to say deficits don't."
...All of this, traditional economists say, makes the markets look frighteningly overbought. "This is a bubble, plain and simple," said Andy Xie, chief Asia/Pacific economist at Morgan Stanley. "Every bubble has a theory about itself and every bubble bursts. There's never been an exception."
On the other side of the debate lie two core arguments: Either the globalized economy has made traditional economic measures inaccurate, or if they are still valid, they are no longer relevant.
Either way, those favoring a new look at accepted economic thinking arrive at the same conclusion: There is no cause for concern over those quaint things called structural problems, they say.