以下属于单位定期存单质押合同应当载明的内容的是_______。___

按照《单位定期存单质押贷款管理规定》，以下哪些情形，贷款人可依法定方式处分单位定期存单_______。___

甲公司向乙银行借款500万，双方签订借款合同，甲公司在丙银行有600万元的定期存款，于是双方以丙银行为甲公司开具的《单位定期存款开户证实书》作质押。依据《单位定期存单质押贷款管理规定》规定，下列说法正确的是______ ___

按照《中国银监会关于加强融资平台贷款风险管理的指导意见》规定，金融机构应结合融资平台贷款的特点，分别对融资平台公司及贷款项目按照贷前调查、贷时审查和贷后检查等环节制定和完善_______。___

按照《中国银监会关于加强融资平台贷款风险管理的指导意见》规定，以下哪些属于融资平台贷款台账统计内容_______。___

按照《中国银监会关于加强融资平台贷款风险管理的指导意见》规定，地方政府融资平台贷款按现金流覆盖比例可划分为_______。___

某银行按照现金流覆盖比例将融资平台贷款划分为全覆盖、基本覆盖、半覆盖和无覆盖平台贷款，并拟以此为依据计算资本充足率贷款风险权重。根据《关于加强融资平台贷款风险管理的指导意见》（银监发[2010]110号），下列表述中， 是错误的。___

监管部门在对某银行开展融资平台贷款专项检查的过程中发现，该银行的融资平台贷款资产质量分类不准确。根据《关于加强融资平台贷款风险管理的指导意见》（银监发[2010]110号），下列分类中， 是错误的。___

按照《中国银监会关于规范中长期贷款还款方式的通知》的规定，对包括平台贷款在内的中长期贷款还款方式进行统一规范要本着_____原则。___

按照《中国银监会关于规范中长期贷款还款方式的通知》的规定，对于“整贷整还”类中长期贷款的存量部分，要通过认真的借贷双方协商，_____的方式，实现调整还款方式。___

按照《中国银监会关于规范中长期贷款还款方式的通知》的规定，银行要科学考量中长期贷款的现金流、行业、项目类别、地区、项目规模等因素，合理确定中长期贷款的_____、总贷款期限。___

根据《中国银监会关于规范中长期贷款还款方式的通知》（银监发[2010]103号），2011年1月5日，某市商业银行就全行中长期贷款还款方式进行严格规范，以下关于其做法描述正确的是 。___

2011年11月16日，某市商业银行与市政府签订战略合作协议，根据双方协议，某市商业银行将在其后几年为该市交投集团、城建投资公司等融资平台公司提供15亿元的项目贷款，2012年开始，某市商业银行陆续为交投集团及城建投资公司提供期限不一的项目贷款，以下关于市商业银行项目贷款相关描述正确的是 。___

A公司是一家国有大型企业，主要业务是有色金属冶炼和贸易。2009年，该公司打算引进一批新的生产设备，改造现有生产线和车间，项目建设期2年，达产期1年。为获得资金完成该项目，该公司向某银行贷款1.4亿元人民币，借款合同约定：贷款期限10年，每季偿付利息，贷款到期后一次偿还本金。2014年，由于国家产业政策调整和公司经营管理不善，A公司财务状况陷入困境，无法按时偿还利息，本金到期偿还压力巨大。根据以上案例情形，以下描述正确的是 。___

按照《中国银监会关于规范银行业金融机构搭桥贷款业务的通知》的规定，属于_____的搭桥贷款，禁止银行业金融机构发放。___

按照《流动资金贷款管理暂行办法》的固定，流动资金贷款________

按照《流动资金贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，具有_____情形的流动资金贷款，原则上应采用贷款人受托支付方式。___

按照《流动资金贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，用借款人自主支付的，贷款人应按借款合同约定要求借款人定期汇总报告贷款资金支付情况，并通过_____ 等方式核查贷款支付是否符合约定用途。___

某医药公司因为采购药品的需要，向银行申请流动资金贷款，银行经审批给予流动资金贷款3000万元，用于支付货款，在贷款支付过程中，银行客户经理发现该医药公司存在以化整为零的方式逃避受托支付管控要求、虚构采购合同支用贷款的情形，请回答以下问题： 根据《流动资金贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，贷款人应采取以下措施： ___

按照《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，贷款人应按_____等维度建立个人贷款风险限额管理制度。___

按照《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，贷款审查应重点关注调查人的禁止情况和借款人的_____等。___

按照《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，_____情形的个人贷款，经贷款人同意可以采取借款人自主支付方式。___

按照《关于商业银行知识产权质押贷款业务的指导意见》的规定，用于质押的知识产权应当_____，依法可转让，且不违反国家保密法规和国有资产管理规定。___

按照《关于商业银行知识产权质押贷款业务的指导意见》的规定，商业银行的知识产权质押合同要明确出质人维护 的义务。___

按照《关于商业银行知识产权质押贷款业务的指导意见》的规定，贷款合同约定的还款期限届满，借款人到期未履行还款义务或者发生当事人约定的实现质权的情形，商业银行可以通过 等方式实现质权。___

某商业银行拟向某科技公司发放知识产权质押贷款，依据《关于商业银行知识产权质押贷款业务的指导意见》规定，商业银行接受作为质物的知识产权的标准包括：___________

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，下列哪些林权不得作为抵押财产_________

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款到期后，银行业金融机构需要处置抵押权时，可采取的方式包括_________

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，以下关于林权抵押贷款业务说法正确的是______。___

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，以下关于林权抵押贷款业务说法正确的是_________

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，银行业金融机构应合理限定林权抵押贷款的期限，贷款期限的制定应依据______。___

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，以下关于林权抵押贷款业务说法正确的是______。___

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，可抵押林权包括______。___

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款到期出现借款人未清偿债务或出现抵押贷款合同规定的行使抵押权的其他情形时可通过______方式处置已抵押的林权。___

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款到期，银行业金融机构可以根据______决定是否展期。___

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款主要满足______。___

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，银行业金融机构不应接受无法处置变现的林权作为抵押物，无法处置变现的林权包括______。___

根据《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》，商业银行应对第二还款来源进行分析评价，确认保证人的保证主体资格和代偿能力，以及抵押、质押的_________

根据《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》，商业银行不得对以下用途的业务进行授信 _________

根据《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》，客户未按国家规定取得以下______ 等有效批准文件之一的，或虽然取得，但属于化整为零、越权或变相越权和超授权批准的，商业银行不得提供授信。___

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___

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___