事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

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___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行小微支行有关事项的通知》规定，社区支行、小微支行应按许可的经营范围展业，不得将业务外包

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行小微支行有关事项的通知》规定，社区支行、小微支行高管人员需要进行任职资格审核

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行小微支行有关事项的通知》规定，社区支行、小微支行设立无需履行相关行政审批程序

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行小微支行有关事项的通知》规定，自助银行配备银行从业人员值守并提供咨询服务，不属于通知界定的社区支行、小微支行范畴，不需提出设立申请，履行准入程序

某商业银行A市分行拟在本市设立5个社区支行，依据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》规定，该行A市分行可以一次性向相关监管部门提出申请

A银行在本市某社区设立了社区支行，三个月后发现该社区内客户的规模和消费习惯不太适合设立社区支行。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》规定，A银行可以报相关监管部门批准将该社区银行改为自助银行

按照《中国银监会关于鼓励和引导民间资本进入银行业的实施意见》规定，民间资本进入银行业应当与其他各类资本同等遵守法律、行政法规和规章有关投资银行业金融机构的持股比例、投资机构数量等审慎规定

按照《中国银监会关于鼓励和引导民间资本进入银行业的实施意见》规定，“四单原则”是指：单列信贷计划、单独配置人力和财务资源、单独客户评定与信贷评审、单独会计核算

按照《中国银监会关于鼓励和引导民间资本进入银行业的实施意见》规定，在市场准入实际工作中，不得单独针对民间资本进入银行业设置限制条件或其他附加条件

按照《中国银监会关于鼓励和引导民间资本进入银行业的实施意见》规定，引导银行业金融机构加强与企业的互利合作，推动小型微型企业信用体系建设，改善民营企业特别是民营小型微型企业融资环境

按照《中国银监会关于鼓励和引导民间资本进入银行业的实施意见》规定，支持银行业金融机构优化现有农村地区网点布局，将在当地所吸收的可贷资金主要用于城镇地区发放贷款

按照《中国银监会关于鼓励和引导民间资本进入银行业的实施意见》规定，严格限制银行业金融机构对中型小型微型企业收取财物顾问费、咨询费等费用

某民营企业拟参与村镇银行的发起设立，拟持股15％，该行为不符合《中国银监会关于鼓励和引导民间资本进入银行业的实施意见》的规定

按照《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》规定，商业银行可以接受本行股权作为质押物

按照《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》的规定：商业银行董事会、高管层要在保障股东合法权利的同时，从构建银行良好公司治理、维护银行健康运行的角度，将规范银行股权质押管理纳入公司治理和风险防控范畴，切实履行职责，确保各项监管要求落到实处

按照《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》的规定：在风险可控的前提下，经本行董事会同意，商业银行可以接受本行的股权作为质物

按照《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》的规定：商业银行要主动加强与有关部门和机构的沟通。协调司法部门和拍卖机构支持银行董事会工作，完善银行股权质押登记程序。协调工商管理部门、证券登记结算机构，确保参与本行股权公开拍卖的竞拍人资质符合监管政策要求。协调股权集中托管机 构提高服务水平，强化信息披露

按照《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》的规定：商业银行要规范开展股权质押授信业务。在风险可控的情况下，商业银行可以接受本行的股权作为质物

某建设集团公司是某股份制银行的股东，且在该银行拥有监事席位。依据《中国银监会关于加强股权质押管理的通知》规定，该公司出质该银行股份，需要事前向该行监事会申请备案，说明出质的原因、股权数额、质押期限、质押权人等基本情况

甲方（科技集团公司）持有乙方（股份制银行）3%股份。2014年6月，甲方将乙方的股权出质给丙方（某村镇银行）申请贷款。依据《中国银监会关于加强股权质押管理的通知》规定，甲方应当严格遵守法律法规和监管部门的要求，并应于事前告知乙方董事会

某通讯集团公司是甲方（城商行）的股东，其持有甲方的股权（2013年度）经审计的净值为5000万元。截至2014年6月，该公司在甲方贷款余额为1亿元。此时，该公司拟以甲方的股权质押给乙方（股份制银行），向乙方申请贷款。依据《中国银监会关于加强股权质押管理的通知》要求，该公司不得将甲方股权质押给乙方，需另寻其他担保措施

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员在执行上级指令时，如发现可能发生违章违纪行为，或可能导致风险时，可越级上报

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，办理授信、资信调查、融资等业务的从业人员，在涉及亲属关系时，可不用回避

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员在社会交往和商业活动中，应廉洁从业，不得接受或给予客户任何形式的非法利益

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员不得从事第二职业

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，董（理）事、监事和高级管理人员应认真执行国家方针政策，恪守职业道德，服从国家宏观调控，维护大局。善于管理，公道正派，作风民主，坚持原则。履行社会责任

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员不得投资股票

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员应做到客户至上，诚实守信，优质服务，执行首问负责制

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员本人消费贷款可用于买卖股票

某银行员工陈某是海峡人才市场劳务派遣人员，未与银行直接签订劳务合同，因此不需要遵守《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引》。根据《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引》，某的看法是否正确？

在某银行工作的员工甲对自己的收入不太满意，就私自到某保险公司申请兼职，利用业余时间营销业务，增加收入，根据《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引》，员工甲的行为是否正确？

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员不得以变相提高存款利率或向存款经办人和关系人支付费用或佣金等方式违规吸储

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员不得借银行名义或利用银行员工身份私自代客投资理财

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员可利用银行员工或银行客户的个人账户为他人过渡资金，或借用银行客户的个人账户为银行员工过渡资金

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员可自办或参与经营典当行、小额贷款公司、担保公司等机构

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员不得向他人提供与自己经济实力不符的个人担保，不得向民间借贷资金提供担保

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构高级管理人员违规参与非法融资活动的，可视情节轻重，采取罚款、调离岗位直至取消高级管理人员任职资格的措施

甲向某银行员工乙所在网点存入了C万元的个人定期存款。为答谢中间介绍人丙，乙向丙支付了1万元的佣金。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》的规定，乙此举违反规定

某银行员工甲介绍亲朋好友向有需要的客户发放高利贷，但其本人并无参与。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》的规定，甲此举并不违规

按照《银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构参与地下钱庄非法活动的，监管部门可依法予以警告，情节严重的，可以没收违法所得或责令停业整顿