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___

中央和省、自治区、直辖市党委建立______，按照有关规定对下级党组织领导班子及其成员进行监督。___

党委（党组）或组织（人事）部门对领导干部进行______，应当把贯彻执行民主集中制、廉政勤政方面的要求和存在的问题作为重要内容。___

在党的领导下，新闻媒体要按照有关规定和程序，通过______，发挥舆论监督的作用。___

提出罢免或撤换要求应当严肃慎重。()党委和纪委委员对于没有列举具体事例，不负责任地提出罢免或撤换要求的，______；对于捏造事实陷害他人的，依纪依法追究责任。___

党的地方各级委员会委员，有权向上级党组织提出罢免或撤换______。___

党员、党组织对处理决定不服的，可以向______申诉。___

对领导干部提出的诫勉要求和该领导干部的说明及表态，应当作书面记录，经本人核实后，由______留存。___

询问可口头提出，也可以书面形式署真实姓名提出。()有关部门应当______。___

对质询中发现的问题，有关党组织应当______。___

______是党内监督的专门机关。___

巡视组不处理所巡视地方的______。___

接到对干部______违纪问题的反映，应当及时找本人核实，谈话提醒、约谈函询，让干部把问题讲清楚。___

中央政治局委员应当严格执行中央八项规定，自觉参加双重组织生活，如实向党中央报告______个人重要事项。___

对违反中央八项规定精神的，严重违纪被立案审查开除党籍的，严重失职失责被问责的，以及发生在群众身边、影响恶劣的不正之风和腐败问题，应当______。___

党的各级纪律检查委员会是党内监督的______。___

派驻纪检组应当带着实际情况和具体问题，定期向派出机关汇报工作，至少______会同被监督单位党组织专题研究1次党风廉政建设和反腐败工作。___

党内监督没有禁区、没有例外。()信任不能代替______。___

中央委员会成员必须严格遵守党的______，发现其他成员有违反党章、破坏党的纪律、危害党的团结统一的行为应当______，并及时向党中央报告。___

党委（党组）在党内监督中负______，______是第一责任人，党委常委会委员（党组成员）和党委委员在职责范围内履行监督职责。___

______是党内监督的重要方式。___

发现领导干部有思想、作风、纪律等方面苗头性、倾向性问题的，有关党组织负责人应当及时对其______；发现轻微违纪问题的，上级党组织负责人应当对其______，并由本人作出说明或者检讨，经所在党组织主要负责人签字后报上级纪委和组织部门。___

强化上级纪委对下级纪委的领导，纪委发现同级党委主要领导干部的问题，可以______向上级纪委报告；下级纪委至少______向上级纪委报告1次工作，每年向上级纪委进行述职。___

纪委派驻纪检组对派出机关负责，加强对被监督单位领导班子及其成员、其他领导干部的监督，发现问题应当及时向______报告，认真负责调查处置，对需要问责的提出建议。___

《中国共产党问责条例》自______起施行。___

《中国共产党问责条例》规定的问责对象是各级党委（党组）、党的工作部门及其领导成员，各级纪委（纪检组）及其领导成员，重点是______。___

《中国共产党问责条例》规定，问责应当分清责任。党组织领导班子在职责范围内负有全面领导责任，领导班子主要负责人和直接主管的班子成员承担______，参与决策和工作的班子其他成员承担______。___

党组织和党的领导干部违反党章和其他党内法规，不履行或者不正确履行职责，有下列情形应当予以问责：全面从严治党不力，______落实不到位，管党治党失之于宽松软，好人主义盛行、搞一团和气，不负责、不担当，党内监督乏力，该发现的问题没有发现，发现问题不报告不处置、不整改不问责，造成严重后果的。___

受到问责的党的领导干部应当向____写出书面检讨。___

党组织和党的领导干部违反党章和其他党内法规，不履行或者不正确履行职责，有下列情形，应当予以问责：维护党的政治纪律、组织纪律、廉洁纪律、群众纪律、工作纪律、生活纪律不力，导致违规违纪行为多发，特别是维护______失职，管辖范围内有令不行、有禁不止，团团伙伙、拉帮结派问题严重，造成恶劣影响的。___

《中国共产党问责条例》规定，有关问责情况应当向组织部门通报，组织部门应当将问责决定材料归入被问责领导干部个人档案，并报上一级组织部门备案；涉及组织调整或者组织处理的，应当在______办理完毕相应手续。___

《中国共产党问责条例》规定，受到问责的党的领导干部应当向问责决定机关______，并在民主生活会或者其他党的会议上作出深刻检查。___

《中国共产党问责条例》规定，实行______，对失职失责性质恶劣、后果严重的，不论其责任人是否调离转岗、提拔或者退休，都应当严肃问责。___

接到对干部______违纪问题的反映，应当及时找本人核实，谈话提醒、约谈函询，让干部把问题讲清楚。___

中央政治局委员应当严格执行中央八项规定，自觉参加双重组织生活，如实向党中央报告______。___

对违反中央八项规定精神的，严重违纪被立案审查开除党籍的，严重失职失责被问责的，以及发生在群众身边、影响恶劣的不正之风和腐败问题，应当______。___

在纪律审查中发现党的领导干部严重违纪涉嫌违法犯罪的，应当先______，再______。___

党的问责工作是由______按照职责权限，追究在党的建设和党的事业中失职失责党组织和党的领导干部的主体责任、监督责任和领导责任。___

《习近平关于严明党的纪律和规矩论述摘编》指出，党章就是党的根本大法，是全党必须遵循的______。___

《习近平关于严明党的纪律和规矩论述摘编》指出，我们党是靠革命理想和铁的纪律组织起来的马克思主义政党，组织严密、______是党的光荣传统和政治优势。___

《习近平关于严明党的纪律和规矩论述摘编》指出，党的纪律是多方面的，但______是最重要、最根本、最关键的纪律。___