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___

为调整和规范人类社会生活三大领域，相应分别形成了___

引导应对气候变化国际合作，成为全球生态文明建设的重要（ ）、（ ）、（ ）。___

五年来，我们勇于面对党面临的重大风险考验和党内存在的突出问题，以顽强意志品质正风肃纪、反腐惩恶，消除了党和国家内部存在的严重隐患，党内政治生活气象更新，党内政治生态明显好转，党的___显著增强。

坚持___的要求，开展党的群众路线教育实践活动和“三严三实”专题教育，推进“两学一做”学习教育常态化制度化，全党理想信念更加坚定、党性更加坚强。

实施乡村振兴战略。___问题是关系国计民生的根本性问题，必须始终把解决好“三农”问题作为全党工作重中之重。

巩固和发展爱国统一战线。坚持___，支持民主党派按照中国特色社会主义参政党要求更好履行职能。

提高就业质量和人民收入水平，鼓励勤劳守法致富，就要___。

加强社会保障体系建设。坚持房子是用来住的、不是用来炒的定位，加快建立___的住房制度，让全体人民住有所居。

加强社会治理制度建设，完善党委领导、政府负责、社会协同、公众参与、法治保障的社会治理体制，提高社会治理___水平。

必须坚持（ ）、（ ）、（ ）为主的方针，形成节约资源和保护环境的空间格局、产业结构、生产方式、生活方式，还自然以宁静、和谐、美丽。___

构建市场导向的绿色技术创新体系，发展绿色金融，壮大（ ）、（ ）、（ ）。___

提高污染排放标准，强化排污者责任，健全（ ）、（ ）、（ ）等制度。___

完成（ ）、（ ）、（ ）三条控制线划定工作。___

保持香港、澳门长期繁荣稳定，必须全面准确贯彻___的方针。

要支持香港、澳门融入国家发展大局，以（ ）、（ ）、（ ）等为重点，全面推进内地同香港、澳门互利合作。___

坚定不移在和平共处五项原则基础上发展同各国的友好合作，推动建设（ ）、（ ）、（ ）的新型国际关系。___

青年兴则国家兴，青年强则国家强。青年一代（ ）、（ ）、（ ），国家就有前途，民族就有希望。___

全面深化改革的总目标是___。

我国经济已由高速增长阶段转向高质量发展阶段，正处在___的攻关期。

党的十九大报告指出，必须坚持和完善我国社会主义基本经济制度和分配制度，__ __。___

关于把握经济发展新常态，下列说法正确的有__ _。___

党的十九大报告提出，要统筹城乡发展、区域发展、__ __，调整经济结构，转变经济发展方式，推进供给侧结构性改革。___

打赢供给侧结构性改革这场硬仗，要按照党的十九大的部署，把提高供给为主攻方向，着力_ __、降成本、补短板，同时还要重点在破立降上下功夫。___

为什么说我国社会主义民主是维护人民根本利益的最广泛、最真实、最管用的民主？___

怎样理解人民代表大会制度是坚持党的领导、人民当家作主、依法治国有机统一的根本政治制度安排？___

___ __问题是关系国计民生的根本性问题，必须始终把解决好“三农”问题作为全党工作重中之重。___

坚决打好精准脱贫攻坚战，要坚持精准扶贫、精准脱贫基本方略，坚持 __ __“三位一体”大扶贫格局。___

完善公共服务体系，就要通过__ __等方式保障基本民生，让改革成果更多更公平惠及全体人民。___

必须坚持__ __为主的方针，形成节约资源和保护环境的空间格局、产业结构、生产方式、生活方式，还自然以宁静、和谐、美丽。___

开创社会主义生态文明新时代，建设美丽中国，我们应该___。

从党的十六大提出“2020年国内生产总值力争比2000年翻两番”，到党的十七大提出“2020年入均国内生产总值比2000年翻两番”，再到党的十八大提出“在发展平衡性、协调性、可持续性明显增强的基础上，国内生产总值和城乡居民人均收入比2010年翻一番”。2017年10月，党的十九大指出，“我国稳定解决了十几亿人的温饱可題，总体上实现小康，不久将全面建成小康社会”。可以发现全面建成小康社会的奋斗目标____ ____。___

____ ___是全面深化改革的出发点和落脚点，是坚持党全心全意为人民服务根本宗旨的必然要求。___

党的十八届三中全会通过了《中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》，提出全面深化改革的总目标是____ ____。___

关于依法治国与以德治国的关系，下列说法正确的有__ _。___

坚持全面从严治党，必须__ _，统筹推进党的各项建设，不断增强党的执政能力。___

党的十九大报告提出，夺取反腐败斗争压倒性胜利，要坚持__ __，坚持重遏制、强高压、长震慑，坚持受贿行贿一起查，坚决防止党内形成利益集团。___

党对统一战线的领导主要是政治领导，即__ __的领导，主要体现为党委领导不是部门领导、集体领导而不是个人领导。___

党的纪律主要包括政治纪律、组织纪律、__ __、工作纪律和生活纪律。___

非连续进行的事故修复工作应填用___

工作班成员的安全责任不包括___

专责监护人应是具有___，熟悉设备情况和本规程的人员。