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___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___

《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___

2018年2月1日，某上市公司发现所使用的甲设备技术革新和淘汰速度加快，决定从该月起将设备预计折旧年限由原来的10年改为6年，当时公司2017年年报尚未报出，该经济事项应属于___。

A公司2017年财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月30日。A公司2018年1月6日向乙公司销售一批商品并确认收入。2018年2月20日，乙公司因产品质量原因将上述商品退回。A公司对此项退货业务正确的处理方法是___。

甲企业拥有的一台自2016年1月1日开始计提折旧的设备，其原值为27 500元，预计使用年限为5年，预计净残值为500元，采用年数总和法计提折旧。从2018年起，该企业将该固定资产的折旧方法改为平均年限法，设备的预计使用年限由5年改为4年，设备的预计净残值由500元改为200元。该设备2018年的折旧额为___元。

下列发生于资产负债表日后期间的事项中，属于调整事项的有___。

某企业一台设备从2016年1月1日开始计提折旧，其原值为111 000元，预计使用年限为5年，预计净残值为1 000元，采用双倍余额递减法计提折旧。从2018年起，该企业将该固定资产的折旧方法改为平均年限法，设备的预计使用年限由5年改为4年，设备的预计净残值由1 000元改为600元。该设备2018年的折旧额为___元。

甲公司2017年10月10日向乙公司销售一批商品，含税价款为468万元，销售成本为350万元，截止2017年12月31日尚未收到上述款项，甲公司按其余额的5%计提了坏账准备。2018年2月28日，乙公司以产品质量不符合合同标准为由将上述商品退回。甲公司2017年财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月30日，2017年度所得税汇算清缴日为2018年5月30日，所得税适用税率为25％。甲公司对此项退货业务不正确的处理是___。

A公司2018年实现净利润300万元。该公司2018年发生或发现的下列交易或事项中，会影响其年初未分配利润的是___。

甲公司2017年度财务报表于2018年4月20日经董事会批准对外报出，按照净利润的10%提取法定盈余公积。2017年12月31日应收乙公司账款3 000万元，当日对其计提坏账准备300万元。2018年2月20日，甲公司获悉乙公司已向法院申请破产，应收乙公司账款预计全部无法收回。不考虑其他因素，上述日后事项对2017年未分配利润的影响金额是___万元。

下列各项中，属于会计差错的是___。

甲上市公司2017年度财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月10日。公司在2018年1月1日至4月10日发生的下列事项中，属于资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

2018年12月31日，该公司发现了2017年度的一项重大差错。该公司正确的做法是___。

甲公司2017年财务报告批准报出日为2018年4月25日。2018年3月2日，甲公司发现2017年度一项财务报表舞弊或差错，该公司应调整___。

按会计准则规定，企业本年度发现的以前年度的重要差错（非资产负债表日后期间），应做的会计处理为___。

报告年度售出并已确认收入的商品于资产负债表日后期间退回时，正确的处理方法是___。

对下列前期差错更正的会计处理，说法不正确的是___。

某上市公司2017年度财务报告于2018年2月10日编制完成，注册会计师完成审计并签署审计报告日是2018年4月10日，经董事会批准报表于4月20日对外公布，股东大会召开日为4月25日。按照准则规定，该公司2017年资产负债表日后事项的涵盖期间为___。

甲公司于2017年1月15日取得一项无形资产，2018年6月7日甲公司发现2017年对该项无形资产仅摊销了11个月。甲公司2017年度的财务会计报告已于2018年4月12日批准报出。假定该事项涉及的金额较大，不考虑其他因素，则甲公司正确的做法是___。

2017年12月31日，W公司对一起未决诉讼确认的预计负债为400万元。2018年3月12日，法院对该起诉讼判决，W公司应赔偿S公司300万元，W公司和S公司均不再上诉，款项已经支付。W公司的所得税税率为25%，按净利润的10%提取法定盈余公积金，2017年度财务报告批准报出日为2018年3月31日，预计未来期间能够取得足够的应纳税所得额用以抵扣可抵扣暂时性差异。假设此时尚未进行所得税汇算清缴，不考虑其他因素，该事项导致W公司2017年12月31日资产负债表“未分配利润”项目期末余额调整增加的金额为___万元。

甲公司2017年度财务报告于2018年3月5日对外报出，2018年2月1日，甲公司收到乙公司因产品质量原因退回的商品，该商品系2018年1月5日销售；2018年2月5日，甲公司按照2017年12月申请通过的方案成功发行公司债券；2018年1月25日，甲公司发现2017年11月20日入账的固定资产未计提折旧；2018年2月15日，甲公司得知丙公司2018年1月30日发生重大火灾，无法偿还所欠甲公司2017年货款。下列事项中，属于甲公司2017年度资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

在资产负债表日后至财务报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项中，属于资产负债表日后非调整事项的是___。

下列各项中，一般不需追溯重述的是___。

甲公司2017年度财务报告于2018年3月5日对外报出，2018年2月1日，甲公司收到乙公司因产品质量原因退回的商品，该商品系2017年12月5日销售；2018年2月5日，甲公司按照2017年12月申请通过的方案成功发行公司债券；2018年1月25日，甲公司发现2017年11月20日入账的固定资产未计提折旧；2018年1月5日，甲公司得知丙公司2017年12月30日发生重大火灾，无法偿还所欠甲公司2017年货款。下列事项中，属于甲公司2017年度资产负债表日后非调整事项的是___。

甲公司2018年2月在上年度财务会计报告批准报出前发现一台管理用固定资产未计提折旧，属于重大差错。该固定资产系2016年6月接受乙公司捐赠取得。根据甲公司的折旧政策，该固定资产2016年应计提折旧100万元，2017年应计提折旧200万元。假定甲公司按净利润的10％提取法定盈余公积。不考虑所得税等其他因素，甲公司下列处理中，不正确的是___。

下列用以更正能够确定累积影响数的重要前期差错的方法中，正确的有___。

下列有关资产负债表日后事项的表述中，不正确的是___。

下列关于会计政策及其变更的表述中，不正确的有___。

某公司2017年的年度会计报告，经董事会批准于2018年3月28日报出。则该公司在2018年1月1日至3月28日发生的下列事项中，属于资产负债表日后事项的调整事项的是___。

下列各项中，属于会计政策变更的有___。

资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的调整事项在进行调整处理时，下列不能调整的项目是___。

甲公司2018年1月10日向乙公司销售一批商品并确认收入实现，2018年2月20日，乙公司因产品质量原因将上述商品退货。甲公司2017年财务会计报告批准报出日为2018年3月31日。甲公司对此项退货业务正确的处理方法是___。

资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项，属于资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项，属于资产负债表日后调整事项的是___。

股份有限公司自资产负债表日至财务会计报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项中，属于调整事项的有___。

某零售企业在年度资产负债表日至财务报告批准报出日之间发生的下列事项中，不属于资产负债表日后事项的为___。

2018年3月10日，甲公司发现2017年一项重大会计差错，在2017年度财务会计报告批准报出前，甲公司应___。

甲企业2017年12月20日向乙企业销售一批商品，已进行收入确认的有关账务处理，2018年2月1日，乙企业收到货物后验收发现存在质量问题，要求退货，经协商2月10日甲企业给予折让300万元。甲企业年度资产负债表批准报出日是4月30日。甲企业对此业务的处理是___。

甲公司2018年2月2日应收B企业账款500万元，双方约定在当年的12月2日偿还，但12月20日B企业宣告破产无法偿付欠款，则在甲公司当年12月31日的资产负债表上，对这笔500万元款项___。

下列属于资产负债表日后事项中“调整事项”的是___。

在资产负债表日后期间，甲公司发现报告年度以前的重大会计差错属于___。

“以前年度损益调整”科目用来核算___。