灰量和渣量占锅炉排灰渣量的百分比，与锅炉的燃烧方式无关

发电厂的原则性热力系统能够反映出发电厂的技术完善程度和经济性的高低

中国的创新正以前所未有的速度蓬勃发展。为了在科学技术上尽快赶超世界发达国家，中国近年来大幅度增加了研究开发资金。中国的大学和研究所正在积极开展创新研究，这些研究覆盖了从大数据到生物化学，从新能源到机器人等各类高科技领域。它们还与各地的科技园合作，使创新成果商业化。与此同时，无论在产品还是商业模式上，中国企业家也在努力争做创新的先锋，以适应国内外消费市场不断变化和增长的需求。

甲公司以一辆汽车换入乙公司的一辆货车。甲公司汽车的账面原价为30万元，已提折旧11万元，乙公司的货车账面价值为25万元，假设该汽车和货车的公允价值均无法合理确定，不考虑增值税等相关税费。甲公司换入货车的入账价值为___万元。

长江公司以库存商品甲产品、乙产品交换黄河公司原材料，双方均将收到的存货作为库存商品核算(具有商业实质)。长江公司和黄河公司适用的增值税税率均为17％，假定计税价格与公允价值相同，有关资料如下：长江公司换出：①库存商品——甲产品，账面成本360万元，已计提存货跌价准备60万元，公允价值300万元；②库存商品——乙产品，账面成本80万元，已计提存货跌价准备20万元，公允价值60万元。含税公允价值合计为421.2万元。黄河公司换出原材料的账面成本413万元，已计提存货跌价准备8万元，公允价值450万元，长江公司另向黄河公司支付银行存款105.3万元，则长江公司取得的原材料入账价值为___万元。

甲公司以一台电子设备换入A公司的一批商品，该设备系甲公司2012年2月购入的账面原价为800 000元，已提折旧300 000元，已提减值准备60 000元，其公允价值为500 000元；A公司换出商品的账面成本为300 000元，公允价值（计税价格）为400 000元，增值税税率为17％，A公司另向甲公司支付银行存款117 000元（其中补价100 000元）。甲公司为换出该项电子设备发生相关清理费用8 000元。该项非货币性资产交换具有商业实质，则甲公司换入商品的入账价值为___元。

甲公司2017年10月10日以一批库存商品换入一项无形资产（土地使用权），并收到对方支付的银行存款38.8万元。该批库存商品的账面价值为120万元，公允价值为150万元，计税价格为140万元，适用的增值税税率为17%；换入无形资产的原账面价值为160万元，公允价值为135万元。假设该交换具有商业实质，则甲公司因该项非货币性资产交换影响损益的金额为___万元。

企业进行具有商业实质且公允价值能够可靠计量的非货币性资产交换，同一事项可能同时影响双方换入资产入账价值的因素是___。

2017年3月甲公司以交易性金融资产交换乙公司生产经营用的精密仪器和无形资产（土地使用权）。有关资料如下：甲公司换出：交易性金融资产的账面价值为55万元（其中成本为53万元、公允价值变动为2万元），公允价值为75万元。乙公司换出：精密仪器原值为20万元，系2014年购入，已计提折旧9万元，公允价值（计税价格）为15万元，增值税税率17％；土地使用权原价为63万元，已计提摊销3万元，公允价值（计税价格）为65万元，增值税税率11％。甲公司向乙公司支付银行存款14.7万元（其中补价5万元，增值税进项税额9.7万元），甲公司为换入精密仪器支付运费4万元。假设该项交换具有商业实质且公允价值能够可靠地计量，交换前后资产的用途不变。则甲公司有关非货币性资产交换的处理，正确的是___。

企业发生的具有商业实质且公允价值能够可靠计量的非货币性资产交换，在没有补价的情况下，如果同时换入多项资产，应当按照___的比例，对换入资产的成本总额进行分配，以确定各项换入资产的入账价值。

下列项目中，属于货币性资产的是___。

2018年3月24日，甲公司以一台设备与乙公司交换一批库存商品，该设备系2013年4月购入原价为300万元，已提折旧为80万元，固定资产减值准备为10万元，公允价值为250万元；乙公司库存商品的账面价值为160万元，公允价值（计税价格）为200万元，适用的增值税税率为17％。甲公司于交换当日收到乙公司支付的银行存款58.5万元（其中补价50万元，增值税销项税和进项税差额8.5万元）。假定该交换具有商业实质，不考虑除增值税以外的其他相关税费。甲公司在该项非货币性资产交换时应确认的收益为___万元。

鸿昌机械厂2018年1月10日用一批库存商品换入一台设备，并收到对方支付的银行存款30万元。该批库存商品的账面价值为120万元，不含增值税的公允价值为150万元，计税价格为140万元，适用的增值税税率为17％；换入设备的原账面价值为130万元，公允价值为120万元，计税价格为140万元，适用的增值税税率为17％，假设该交换具有商业实质，则该企业换入设备的入账额为___万元。

2017年10月，东大公司以一台当年购入的设备与正保公司的一项土地使用权交换。设备的账面原值为20万元，折旧为4万元，已提减值准备2万元，公允价值10万元。东大公司另向正保公司支付银行存款3万元。假设该交换具有商业实质，增值税税率为17％。东大公司应确认的资产转让损失为___万元。

山水公司为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率为17%。2018年1月20日以其拥有的一项专利技术（符合免征增值税条件）与日上公司生产的一批商品交换。交换日，山水公司换出专利技术的成本为100万元，累计摊销为20万元，已计提减值准备30万元，公允价值无法可靠计量；换入商品的公允价值为80万元，增值税税额为13.6万元，山水公司将其作为存货核算；山水公司另向日上公司支付20万元补价。该非货币性资产交换具有商业实质，不考虑其他因素，山水公司以下处理不正确的是___万元。

天山公司用一台已使用2年的甲设备从海洋公司换入一台乙设备，为换入乙设备支付相关税费10 000元，从海洋公司收取银行存款30 000元。甲设备的原账面原价为500 000元，原预计使用年限为5年，原预计净残值为5％，并采用双倍余额递减法计提折旧，未计提减值准备；乙设备的原账面原价为240 000元，已提折旧30 000元。假设两公司资产置换具有商业实质。置换时，甲、乙设备的公允价值分别为250 000元和220 000元。假定不考虑换入、换出资产的增值税因素的影响。天山公司换入乙设备的入账价值为___元。

下列各项交易中，属于非货币性资产交换的是___。

某企业2018年1月10日用一批库存商品换入一台设备，并收到对方支付的银行存款30万元。该批库存商品的账面价值为120万元，不含增值税的公允价值为150万元，计税价格为140万元，适用的增值税税率为17％；换入设备的原账面价值为130万元，公允价值为120万元，计税价格为140万元，适用的增值税税率为17％，假设该交换具有商业实质，则该企业因此项交换影响损益的金额为___万元。

下列描述中不属于换入或换出资产的公允价值能够可能计量的是___。

甲公司为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率为17%。2018年1月20日以其拥有的一项专利技术（符合免征增值税条件）与乙公司生产的一批商品交换。交换日，甲公司换出专利技术的成本为100万元，累计摊销为20万元，已计提减值准备30万元，公允价值无法可靠计量；换入商品的成本为50万元，未计提存货跌价准备，公允价值为80万元，增值税税额为13.6万元，甲公司将其作为存货核算；甲公司另向乙公司支付20万元补价。该非货币性资产交换具有商业实质，不考虑其他因素，甲公司对该交易应确认的收益为___万元。

A企业以其用于经营出租的一幢公寓楼，与B企业同样用于经营出租的一幢公寓楼进行交换，两幢公寓楼的租期、每期租金，及租金总额均相等。其中A企业用于交换的公寓楼是租给一家财务信用状况比较良好的企业用作职工宿舍，B企业用于交换的公寓楼是租给散户使用。则下列关于商业实质的，正确的是___。

具有商业实质且以公允价值计量的非货币性资产交换，在换出库存商品且其公允价值包含增值税的情况下，下列说法正确的是___。

M公司以一项无形资产交换N公司的一项管理用固定资产。M公司换出无形资产的账面原值为3600万元，累计摊销为1800万元，公允价值为2000万元，另以银行存款支付换入固定资产的运输费用20万元。M公司另向N公司支付补价10万元。假定该交易具有商业实质，不考虑其他税费影响。则M公司换入的固定资产的入账价值为___万元。

在不具有商业实质、不涉及补价的非货币性资产交换中，确定换入资产入账价值时不应考虑的因素是___。

香河公司以一台A设备换入大兴公司的一台B设备。A设备的账面原价为100万元，已计提折旧22万元，已计提减值准备8万元，公允价值为120万元。B设备的账面原价为80万元，已计提折旧7万元，已计提减值准备3万元。假定香河公司和大兴公司的交换不具有商业实质，不考虑增值税等相关税费的影响。香河公司换入B设备时影响利润总额的金额为___万元。

甲公司为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率为17%。甲公司以一台生产经营用固定资产（动产）换入乙公司的一项交易性金融资产。换出固定资产的账面原价为1200万元，已计提折旧50万元，未计提减值准备，公允价值和计税价格均为1300万元；交易性金融资产的账面价值为1271万元，未计提减值准备，公允价值为1300万元；乙公司另外向甲公司支付补价100万元。甲公司为换入交易性金融资产支付相关交易费用5万元。假定该非货币性资产交换不具有商业实质。则甲公司换入交易性金融资产的入账价值为___万元。

2018年1月1日甲公司将一项交易性金融资产与一批存货和乙公司的一批重型设备进行交换。已知甲公司交易性金融资产的账面价值为100万元（其中成本为80万元，公允价值变动收益为20万元），公允价值为120万元；存货的成本为150万元，已计提存货跌价准备30万元，公允价值为180万元。乙公司重型设备的成本为240万元，公允价值为260万元。乙公司另向甲公司支付补价40万元。该项非货币性资产交换具有商业实质。不考虑增值税等其他因素的影响，甲公司换出资产影响当期损益的金额为___万元。

甲、乙公司为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率为17%。甲公司以一批账面价值为165万元，不含税公允价值（等于计税价格）为200万元的原材料和一台原价为235万元，已计提累计折旧100万元，不含税公允价值（等于计税价格）128万元的固定资产（设备）与乙公司的一项长期股权投资进项交换。长期股权投资的账面价值为240万元，公允价值为300万元。乙公司另支付甲公司银行存款83.76万元。该非货币性资产交换具有商业实质。乙公司取得的原材料和固定资产的入账价值分别为___万元。

甲公司欠乙公司600万元货款，到期日为2018年10月30日。甲公司因财务困难，经协商于2018年11月15日与乙公司签订债务重组协议，协议规定甲公司以价值550万元的商品抵偿欠乙公司上述全部债务。2018年11月20日，乙公司收到该商品并验收入库。2018年11月22日办理了有关债务解除手续。该债务重组的重组日为___。

甲公司因购货原因于2018年1月1日产生应付乙公司账款100万元，货款偿还期限为3个月。2018年4月1日，甲公司发生财务困难，无法偿还到期债务，经与乙公司协商进行债务重组。双方同意：以甲公司的两辆小汽车抵偿债务。这两辆小汽车原值为100万元，已提累计折旧20万元，公允价值为50万元。假定上述资产均未计提减值准备，不考虑相关税费。则债务人甲公司计入“资产处置损益”和“营业外收入”的金额分别为___万元。

2018年2月10日，远洋公司销售一批材料给长江公司，同时收到长江公司签发并承兑的一张面值100 000元、年利率7％、6个月到期还本付息的票据。当年8月10日，长江公司发生财务困难，无法兑现票据，经双方协议，远洋公司同意长江公司用一台设备抵偿该应收票据。这台设备的历史成本为120 000元，累计折旧为30 000元，清理费用等1 000元，计提的减值准备为9 000元，公允价值为90 000元。远洋公司未对债权计提坏账准备。假定不考虑其他相关税费。长江公司应确认的债务重组收益和资产转让损益分别为___元。

2018年2月20日，正保公司销售一批材料给大华公司，同时收到大华公司签发并承兑的一张面值100 000元，年利率7%、期限为6个月、到期还本付息的票据。8月20日，大华公司发生财务困难，无法兑现票据，经双方协议，正保公司同意大华公司以其普通股抵偿该票据。假设普通股的面值为1元，大华公司以5 000股抵偿该项债权，股票市价为每股10元。大华公司应确认的“资本公积”为___元。

以债权转为股权的，受让股权的入账价值为___。

2018年1月10日，因B公司出现严重财务困难，无力支付所欠A公司的货款1 000万元，双方达成债务重组协议，协议约定，B公司以一项生产经营设备偿还全部债务。该项设备是B公司2015年购入的，账面原价为800万元，累计折旧60万元，未计提减值准备，债务重组日公允价值为720万元(不含增值税)。A公司已对该项债权计提坏账准备30万元。假定不考虑其他相关税费，A公司取得固定资产的入账价值是___万元。

甲公司持有乙公司的应收票据面值为30 000元，票据到期时，累计利息为1 000元，乙公司支付了利息，同时由于乙公司财务陷入困境，甲公司同意将乙公司的票据期限延长两年，并减少本金8 000元，则乙公司计入营业外收入的金额是___元。

在债务人发生财务困难的情况下，下列属于债务重组的是___。

以修改其他债务条件进行债务重组的，如果债务重组协议中附有或有应付金额的，该或有应付金额最终没有发生的，应___。

甲公司因乙公司发生严重财务困难，预计难以全额收回乙公司所欠货款240万元。经协商，乙公司以银行存款180万元结清了全部债务。甲公司对该项应收账款已计提坏账准备24万元。假定不考虑其他因素，债务重组日甲公司应确认的损失为___万元。

2018年6月11日，M公司就应收B公司货款2 340 000元（已计提坏账准备80 000元）与其进行债务重组。经协商，M公司同意豁免B公司债务340 000元，延长债务偿还期限6个月，每月按2％收取利息，如果从7月份起公司盈利则每月再加收1％的利息，12月11日B公司应将本金和利息一起偿还。在债务重组日M公司应确认的重组损失为___元。

下列各项以非现金资产清偿全部债务的债务重组中，属于债务人债务重组利得的是___。

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___