根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引的通知 》规定，并表管理是指商业银行对银行集团及其附属机构的公司治理、资本和财务等进行全面持续的管控，并有效识别、计量、监测和控制银行集团总体风险状况。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引的通知 》规定，商业银行并表管理要素包括并表管理范围、业务协同、公司治理、全面风险管理、资本管理、集中度管理、内部交易管理和风险隔离等。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引的通知 》规定，商业银行应当将所有纳入并表管理的机构的各类表内外、境内外、本外币业务纳入集团并表管理的业务范围。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引的通知 》规定，对于银行集团内部互持资本及银行集团对外资本投资，商业银行在计算银行集团资本充足率时，可以不予处理。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行在确保银行集团内部风险隔离的基础上，可以在集团成员之间开展产品营销、系统开发和数据处理等外包业务。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行原则上应当要求各附属机构聘请不同外部审计事务所进行外部审计。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，银行集团风险管理主要负责人应当参与银行集团各项重大经营策略的制定和实施，并可以根据风险管理的需要独立行使对相关经营策略的调整建议权。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行为境外附属机构提供流动性支持时，应当特别考虑其所在地的法律和监管规定。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，资本规划应当至少设定内部资本充足率五年目标。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，银行集团风险限额临近监管指标限额时，商业银行应当启动相应的纠正措施和报告程序。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，空壳公司是指商业银行为有效管理各类投资或隔离风险等目的而直接或间接持有的、专门用于持有投资项目的公司法人。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，商业银行附属机构的机构名称和产品名称不得与母银行的正式名称或简称有所区别。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，银行集团风险偏好和全面风险管理政策可以不经董事会批准后实施，不定期进行评价和必要的调整。___

根据《商业银行并表管理与监管指引》规定，因跨境跨业法律与监管差异而可能引发的风险商业银行可不予关注。___

根据《银行业金融机构绩效考评监管指引》规定，银行业金融机构绩效考评应当坚持稳健经营、合规引领、战略导向、综合平衡、统一执行的原则。___

根据《银行业金融机构绩效考评监管指引》规定，发展转型类指标属于银行业金融机构绩效考评指标五大类之一。___

某银行下属分行结合总行绩效考评，在制定分行绩效考评办法时候自行提高考评标准及相关要求。该方式是为了分行取得更好经营业绩，符合银监会《银行业金融机构绩效考评监管指引》的规定。___

某银行在2013年9月20日下发通知，在全行对存款新增指标予以重奖。全行员工个人营销新增活期存款在2014年12月31日突破1000万元的，予以奖励2万元。前述奖励行为是为商业银行取得更好经营业绩所创设，是一种商业行为，符合银监会《中国银监会办公厅关于银行业金融机构进一步做好绩效考评工作的意见》的要求。___

根据《商业银行稳健薪酬监管指引》规定，绩效薪酬是商业银行支付给员工的业绩报酬和增收节支报酬，商业银行主要负责人的绩效薪酬根据年度经营考核结果，在其基本薪酬的5倍以内确定。___

根据《商业银行稳健薪酬监管指引》规定，福利性收入包括商业银行为员工支付的社会保险费、住房公积金、补充医疗保险等。___

根据《商业银行稳健薪酬监管指引》规定，中长期激励在协议约定的锁定期到期后支付。中长期激励的兑现应得到董事会同意。锁定期长短取决于相应各类风险持续的时间，至少为1年。___

根据《商业银行稳健薪酬监管指引》规定，某银行结合年中经营情况，可自行对绩效考评进行调整，无需将调整情况报送银监会及其派出机构。___

根据《商业银行稳健薪酬监管指引》规定，董事会根据国家有关法律和政策规定负责本行的薪酬管理制度和政策设计，并对薪酬管理负最终责任。___

某商业银行对该行高级管理层绩效薪酬采取了延期支付的方式，该行副行长王某2012年度的绩效薪酬总额为100万元，该行在当年向王某支付了40万元绩效薪酬，并计划分别在2013、2014、2015年度均向王某支付20万元绩效薪酬，根据《商业银行稳健薪酬监管指引》要求，该商业银行的这种做法是否正确？___

根据《商业银行流动性覆盖率信息披露办法》规定，高级法银行以外的其他商业银行应当至少根据发布财务报告的频率和并表口径，在财务报告中或官方网站上披露流动性覆盖率及合格优质流动性资产、未来30天现金净流出量的期末数值。 ___

根据《商业银行流动性覆盖率信息披露办法》规定，商业银行因特殊原因不能按时披露流动性覆盖率信息的，可以视情况决定是否向银监会申请延迟披露。 ___

根据《商业银行流动性覆盖率信息披露办法》规定，若只在官方网站上披露流动性覆盖率信息，高级法银行应当在财务报告中提供查阅上述信息的网址链接。 ___

根据《商业银行净稳定资金比例信息披露办法》规定，商业银行应当保证净稳定资金比例对外披露数据与监管报送数据之间的一致性；如有重大差异，应当及时向银行业监督管理机构解释说明。___

根据《商业银行净稳定资金比例信息披露办法》规定，高级法银行应当自2019年起根据并表口径披露季末净稳定资金比例及各明细项目数值。除特殊规定外，净稳定资金比例各项目折算前和折算后的金额均需要披露。___

根据《商业银行净稳定资金比例信息披露办法》规定，对于未根据本办法要求进行信息披露的商业银行，银行业监督管理机构应当要求其限期整改，并视情形根据有关法律法规采取监管措施或者实施行政处罚。___

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于规范商业银行股东报告事项的通知》规定，自然人、金融产品等投资主体及其关联方、一致行动人单独或合计通过证券市场购买上市商业银行股份总额百分之一以上、百分之五以下的，无需参照本通知有关报告材料目录和重点关注事项的相关规定进行报告。___

《中国银监会办公厅关于规范商业银行股东报告事项的通知》规定的报告材料目录包含股权状态信息。___

《中国银监会办公厅关于规范商业银行股东报告事项的通知》规定的的报告材料目录不包含关联交易信息。___

根据《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》规定，商业银行可以接受本行股权作为质押物。___

根据《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》的规定，商业银行董事会、高管层要在保障股东合法权利的同时，从构建银行良好公司治理、维护银行健康运行的角度，将规范银行股权质押管理纳入公司治理和风险防控范畴，切实履行职责，确保各项监管要求落到实处。___

根据《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》的规定，在风险可控的前提下，经本行董事会同意，商业银行可以接受本行的股权作为质物。___

根据《中国银监会关于加强商业银行股权质押管理的通知》的规定，商业银行要主动加强与有关部门和机构的沟通，协调司法部门和拍卖机构支持银行董事会工作，完善银行股权质押登记程序；协调工商管理部门、证券登记结算机构，确保参与本行股权公开拍卖的竞拍人资质符合监管政策要求。___

甲方（科技集团公司）持有乙方（股份制银行）3%股份。2014年6月，甲方将乙方的股权出质给丙方（某村镇银行）申请贷款。根据《中国银监会关于加强股权质押管理的通知》的规定，甲方应当严格遵守法律法规和监管部门的要求，并应于事前告知乙方董事会。___

某通讯集团公司是甲方（城商行）的股东，其持有甲方的股权（2013年度）经审计的净值为5000万元。截至2014年6月，该公司在甲方贷款余额为1亿元。此时，该公司拟以甲方的股权质押给乙方（股份制银行），向乙方申请贷款。根据《中国银监会关于加强股权质押管理的通知》要求，该公司不得将甲方股权质押给乙方，需另寻其他担保措施。___

根据《商业银行资本管理办法（试行）》规定，银监会有权在第二支柱框架下提出更审慎的资本要求，包括根据风险判断针对部分资产组合提出的特定资本要求以及根据监督检查结果针对单家银行提出的特定资本要求。___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

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。