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___

当事人对行政处罚决定不服申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼的，行政处罚不停止执行，法律另有规定的除外。

当事人对当场作出的行政处罚决定不服的，可以依法申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼。

当场行政处罚决定书应当载明当事人的违法行为、行政处罚依据、罚款数额、时间、地点以及行政机关名称，并由执法人员签名或者盖章。

行政机关不得因当事人申辩而加重处罚。

违法行为在一年内未被发现的，不再给予行政处罚。

违法行为轻微并及时纠正，没有造成危害后果的，也应给予行政处罚。

精神病人在不能辨认或者不能控制自己行为时有违法行为的，不予行政处罚，但应当责令其监护人严加看管和治疗。

受委托组织在委托范围内，以委托行政机关名义实施行政处罚；不得再委托其他任何组织或者个人实施行政处罚。

行政机关作出责令停产停业的处罚决定前，应当告知当事人有要求举行听证的权利。

执法人员当场作出的行政处罚决定，必须报所属行政机关备案。

除法律、行政法规另有规定外，行政处罚法明确规定行政处罚由违法行为发生地的县级以上地方人民政府具有行政处罚权的行政机关管辖。

行政机关违反法定的行政处罚程序的，由上级行政机关或者有关部门责令改正，可以对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员依法给予行政处分。

行政机关在调查或者进行检查时，执法人员不得少于两人。

行政机关收集证据时，在证据可能灭失或者以后难以取得的情况下，经行政机关负责人批准，可以先行登记保存，并应当在7日内作出处理决定。

没有法定依据或者不遵守法定程序的，行政处罚无效。

监察局给某公务员行政记过处分属于行政处罚。

根据《行政处罚法》的规定，主动消除或者减轻违法行为危害后果的，应当依法从轻或者减轻行政处罚。

行政机关及其执法人员当场收缴罚款的，必须向当事人出具省、自治区、直辖市财政部门统一制发的罚款收据，不出具财政部门统一制发的罚款收据的，当事人有权拒绝缴纳罚款。

在行政处罚听证会上，应当当场做出处罚决定。

不满十四周岁的人有行政违法行为的，不予行政处罚，责令监护人加以管教。

听取当事人的陈述、申辩，是处理每个行政处罚案件的必经程序。

当事人对当场做出的行政处罚决定不服，不能申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼。

当事人不履行行政处罚决定的，行政机关都可以自己强制执行。

没有法定依据或不遵守法定程序的行政处罚无效。

根据《行政处罚法》的规定，对于尚未制定法律、法规的，省级人民政府制定的规章对违反行政管理秩序的行为，可以设定警告或者一定数量罚款的行政处罚。

当事人确有经济困难，需要延期或者分期缴纳罚款的，经当事人申请和行政机关批准，可以暂缓或者分期缴纳。

执法人员当场做出的行政处罚决定，必须报所属行政机关备案。

根据《行政处罚法》的规定，违法行为轻微并及时纠正，没有造成危害后果的，不予行政处罚。

行政机关作出暂扣许可证的决定，这一行为属于行政强制措施。

行政复议期间被申请人改变原具体行政行为的，行政复议机关停止对原具体行政行为的审查，改为对改变后的具体行政行为进行审查。

行政机关作出具体行政行为时未告知公民、法人或者其他组织，事后补充告知的，行政复议申请期限自该具体行政决定作出之日起计算。

行政机关设立的派出机构、内设机构或者其他组织，未经法律、法规授权，对外以自己名义作出具体行政行为的，该行政机关为被申请人。

下级行政机关依照法律、法规、规章规定，经上级行政机关批准作出具体行政行为的，该下级行政机关为被申请人。

根据国务院或者省、自治区、直辖市人民政府对行政区划的勘定、调整或者征收土地的决定，省、自治区、直辖市人民政府确认土地、矿藏、水流、森林、山岭、草原、荒地、滩涂、海域等自然资源的所有权或者使用权的行政复议决定为最终裁决。

行政复议机关责令被申请人重新作出具体行政行为的，被申请人不得以同一的事实和理由作出与原具体行政行为相同或者基本相同的具体行政行为。

行政复议机关决定撤销或者确认具体行政行为违法的，无权责令被申请人在一定期限内重新作出具体行政行为。

在行政复议过程中，被申请人不得自行向申请人和其他有关组织或者个人收集证据。

行政复议期间具体行政行为停止执行是原则，不停止执行是例外。

公民、法人或者其他组织对行政机关的具体行政行为不服申请行政复议的，作出具体行政行为的行政机关是被申请人。

行政复议是具有一定司法性的行政行为。