甲签发汇票一张，汇票上记载收款人为乙，保证人为丙、丁，金额为20万元，汇票到期日为1997年11月1日。乙持票后将其背书转让给戊，戊再背书转让给己，己要求付款银行付款时被以背书不具连续性为由拒绝付款。根据《最高人民法院关于审理票据纠纷案件若干问题的规定》的规定， 己可以向戊行使追索权，也可以同时向甲、乙、戊行使追索权

按照《最高人民法院关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定》规定，开证行在作出付款、承兑或者履行信用证项下其他义务的承诺后，开证行履行在信用证规定的期限内付款的义务时，应当审查开证申请人与受益人之间的基础交易

按照《最高人民法院关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定》规定，保证人以开证行或者开证申请人接受不符点未征得其同意为由请求免除保证责任的，人民法院应当支持

按照《最高人民法院关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定》规定，开证申请人、开证行或者其他利害关系人发现法律规定的情形，并认为将会给其造成难以弥补的损害时，可以向有管辖权的人民法院申请中止支付信用证项下的款项

按照《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国担保法〉若干问题的解释》规定，反担保人可以是债务人，也可以是债务人之外的其他人

按照《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国担保法〉若干问题的解释》规定，主合同解除后，担保人对债务人应当承担的民事责任就不再承担担保责任

按照《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国担保法〉若干问题的解释》规定，担保物权所担保的债权的诉讼时效结束后，担保权人在诉讼时效结束后的二年内行使担保物权的，人民法院应当予以支持

甲公司向乙银行借款500万，双方签订借款合同，并由自然人王某提供保证担保。准备签订保证合同时，王某提出只愿意出具单方书面担保函，乙银行接受了王某的单方担保函。依据《担保法解释》规定，王某可以视为已经提供了担保，无需与乙银行签订合同

林某与甲银行签订借款合同，借款金额为C万元人民币，后来银行工作人员发现林某在公园附近有一房屋，要求林某追加该房屋作为抵押，双方签订了抵押合同。后林某的房屋被认定为违章建筑。依据《担保法解释》规定，甲银行认为抵押有效，因双方已经签订了抵押合同

现金流量是一个综合财务指标，既能体现流动性，也能体现盈利性

不良贷款拨备覆盖率=贷款损失准备金计提余额/不良贷款余额

《商业银行资本管理办法》实施后，正常时期系统重要性银行和非系统重要性银行的资本充足率要求分别为11.5%和10.5%

核心一级资本充足率=（总资本-对应资本扣减项）/风险加权资产×D％

流动比率是用来衡量企业长期偿债能力的财务分析比率

核心一级资本充足率=（核心一级资本-对应资本扣减项）/风险加权资产 ×D％

资产负债比率是用来衡量长期偿债能力的财务分析比率

不良贷款率=（次级类贷款+可疑类贷款+损失类贷款）/各项贷款×D％

一级资本充足率=（总资本-对应资本扣减项）/风险加权资产×D％

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，从业人员是指按照《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》规定，与银行业金融机构签订劳动合同的在岗人员，银行业金融机构董（理）事会成员、监事会成员及高级管理人员，以及银行业金融机构聘用或与劳务代理机构签订协议直接从事金融业的其他人员（包括邮政代理人员）

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，处罚信息是指银行业金融机构从业人员在执业过程中受到行政处罚、党纪处分、内部处分及其他处罚等惩戒措施的信息

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，外资银行业金融机构不适用本办法

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，银行业金融机构对所报送信息的真实性和准确性负责

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，已离职从业人员的责任认定结果，由该人员离职前的任职机构向银监会或所在地派出机构报送

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，银行业金融机构应与银监会或其派出机构签订“从业人员处罚信息申请使用查询承诺书”后方可查询有关处罚信息

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，处罚信息除刑事处罚和金融监管部门作出的取消董事、高级管理人员终身任职资格、禁止终身从事银行业工作的行政处罚为终身有效外，其他处罚信息保存期限为处罚期限终止日起3年

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，违反本办法瞒报、查询、使用、泄露处罚信息的，银监会及其派出机构依法采取监管措施，银行业金融机构承担由此带来的法律风险和声誉风险

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，银行业金融机构应按照“一人一事一报”的原则，于处罚决定生效后5个工作日内向银监会或其派出机构报送

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，银行业金融机构应事先以聘用合同、员工守则等形式明确告知从业人员，如有违法违规违纪行为，其处罚信息将报送监管部门，并用于行业内共享

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，银监会及其派出机构在审查银行业金融机构董事、高级管理人员、要害部门岗位人员任职资格时，须按照“谁受理谁查询”的原则查询从业人员处罚信息，并根据查询结果，依照有关规定决定是否予以核准或是否同意所备案事项

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，银行业金融机构在招录人员时应向银监会或派出机构申请查询有关处罚信息

依据《关于印发银行业金融机构从业人员处罚信息管理办法》规定，银行业金融机构应与银监会或其派出机构签订“从业人员处罚信息申请使用查询承诺书”后方可查询有关处罚信息

国务院办公厅《转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）总体要求，地方各级政府和银行业金融机构要妥善处理融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题，实施存量和增量统一管理，依法合规进行融资，切实满足促进经济发展和防范财政金融风险的需要

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，对于在2014年12月31日前已签订具有法律效力的借款合同并已放款，但合同尚未到期的融资平台公司在建项目贷款，银行业金融机构要在全面把控风险、落实信贷条件的前提下，继续按照合同约定发放贷款，不得盲目抽贷、压贷、停贷

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，对于在2014年9月21日前已签订具有法律效力的借款合同，且合同到期的融资平台公司在建项目贷款，如果项目自身运营收入不足以还本付息，银行业金融机构可与地方政府、融资平台公司协商，在后续借款与前期借款合同约定的责任一致，且确保借款合同金额不增加的前提下，重新修订借款合同，合理确定贷款期限，补充合格有效抵质押品

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，对于已签合同贷款额不能满足建设需要，且适宜采取政府和社会资本合作模式的融资平台公司在建项目，优先采取政府和社会资本合作模式，弥补在建项目增量融资需求

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，为了解决在建项目融资与政府债券发行之间的时间差问题，地方财政部门可以动用国库库款用于在建项目的资金周转，但在动用前，须报经本级人大批准。地方财政部门在完成政府债券发行之后，要及时将资金全部收回国库

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，财政部、人民银行、证券会要加强财政政策和货币政策的协调配合，为地方政府发行债券创造良好的市场环境

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，证券会要制定出台地方政府债券配套管理办法，加强对地方政府债券发行和使用工作的组织领导

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，人民银行要加强监管、正确引导，推动银行业金融机构在依法合规、有效防范风险的前提下，做好融资平台公司在建项目后续融资工作，并将本意见传达至各银行业金融机构

按照《国务院办公厅转发财政部人民银行银监会关于妥善解决地方政府融资平台公司在建项目后续融资问题意见的通知》（国办发[2015]40号）规定，对地方政府按法律要求和有关规定发行政府债券解决的在建项目后续融资，在保障财政支出需要的前提下，对于有相应政府债券发行额度，且本地区国库库款余额超过一个月库款支付保障水平的地区，允许地方财政部门在政府债券发行额度内，加大盘活以前年度存量财政资金力度，利用超出部分的国库库款用于政府债券发行之前的资金周转，以解决在建项目融资与政府债券发行之间的时间差问题

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

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___