按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，对资金汇划异常的账户，要切实加强布控，及时预警监测_______。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应坚持_______原则，加强开户真实性审核，包括开户文件和印鉴的真实性、开户申请人意愿的真实性和开户办理人身份的真实性等。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构总行应集中上收代销业务审批权限，对代销机构实行_______管理，严禁分支机构超授权代销。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应以滚动屏幕显示、在营业场所醒目位置张贴_______等方式，告知客户购买金融产品有风险、私售产品的主要表现形式及危害，提高客户自我保护意识。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应以抄写_______等方式向客户充分揭示其投资产品的风险和应承担的责任，确保其风险知情权。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强对接触客户信息岗位的权限管理和行为管理，特别关注_______环境下新兴业务应用、交易系统存在的客户信息泄露隐患，确保对可能产生信息泄露的环节有足够的监测和管控能力。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应在_______实施同步录音录像，录像资料回放应清晰辨别银行员工和客户的面部特征，显示业务办理全过程。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应完善营业场所管理制度，落实_______对营业场所、营业秩序的管理职责。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应严防不法分子冒充银行工作人员在_______从事非法或违规活动，并在醒目位置予以明确公告。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应制定完善员工异常行为排查制度，落实_______对员工的管理、教育和监督职责。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应针对突出风险点制定并下发员工从业_______和职业操守“底线”，对违反禁止性规定的发现一起、严厉查处一起，涉嫌犯罪的要移送公安、司法机关。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应明确风险事件报告、检查、处置、整改、问责的标准化处理流程及各部门职责分工，完善_______。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，事发机构所在_______承担查处和整改的第一责任。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，总行业务条线部门和_______要联合组织风险事件查处工作，提升诊断风险、剖析原因、认定责任、整改预防等方面的专业性和精准性。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，对于风险事件暴露出的、可能普遍存在的风险隐患，由_______及时向全辖发布风险警示，组织专项检查。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，对于风险事件暴露出的管理问题，要实行涉事机构所在的_______双线整改。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，在对风险事件直接责任人进行严肃问责的同时，对管理不尽职、履职不到位的_______也要严格认定责任并严肃问责。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应将_______纳入绩效考评。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，对于涉事机构自查发现、主动报告、积极处置的，可在考核中酌情考虑；对于发生风险事件隐瞒不报的，要_______。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应鼓励员工主动举报违规行为，及时、深入核实员工举报信息，有效保护举报人，充分发挥_______的积极作用。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强对公众的持续_______，提高公众风险防范和依法维权意识。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应对可能引发声誉风险的事件制定_______。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应建立舆情应对的_______机制。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应加强与_______的沟通联系及信息披露力度。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于加强银行业金融机构内控管理有效防范柜面业务操作风险的通知》规定，银行业金融机构应积极主动做好_______接待工作。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构信贷资金投向奢华浪费项目的通知(银监办发〔2014〕269号)》规定，商业银行对于单笔金额超过项目总投资_______的贷款资金支付，应严格采用受托支付方式。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构信贷资金投向奢华浪费项目的通知(银监办发〔2014〕269号)》规定，商业银行对于单笔金额超过_______的贷款资金支付，应严格采用受托支付方式。___

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构信贷资金投向奢华浪费项目的通知(银监办发〔2014〕269号)》规定，商业银行对于涉及政府负有偿还责任的项目，要特别关注 。 ___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，小微企业贷款要努力实现“三个不低于”，以下_______不属于“三个不低于”内容。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，2015年要继续执行好现有的各项小微企业金融服务政策，强化“六项机制”建设，以下_______不属于“六项机制”建设内容。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，2015年要继续落实小微企业金融服务专营机构“四单原则”。以下_______不属于“四单原则”内容。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，商业银行要围绕小微企业贷款增速不低于各项贷款平均增速的目标，年初单列全年小微企业信贷计划，并于一季度末前将经本行_______审批的小微企业信贷计划报送监管部门。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，商业银行要围绕小微企业贷款增速不低于各项贷款平均增速的目标，年初单列全年小微企业信贷计划，并于_______前将经本行主要负责人审批的小微企业信贷计划报送监管部门。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，商业银行要通过_______等方式争取和腾挪信贷资源用于小微企业贷款。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，商业银行要进一步扩大小微企业专项金融债发行工作，对发债募集资金实施专户管理，确保_______用于发放小微企业贷款。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，要进一步丰富小微企业金融服务机构种类，支持在小微企业集中的地区设立_______等小型金融机构。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，_______要坚持立足当地、服务小微的市场定位，向县域和乡镇等小微企业集中的地区延伸网点和业务。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，商业银行应于_______前制定小微企业业务尽职免责办法，并报送监管部门备案。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，小微企业尽职免责办法应对尽职免责的适用对象、_______、免责范围规定具体明确的操作细则。___

按照《中国银监会关于2015年小微企业金融服务工作的指导意见》（银监发[2015]8号）规定，经检查监督和责任认定，有充分证据表明授信部门和授信工作人员按照有关法律法规以及商业银行相应的管理制度勤勉尽职地履行了职责的，在授信出现风险时，应_______授信部门和相关授信工作人员的合规责任。___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

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___