根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，代理营业机构应当统一使用“中国邮政储蓄银行”标识。金融服务品牌由邮储银行、邮政企业共同使用

根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，邮政企业办理邮储银行委托的商业银行业务应与邮政业务实行分账管理，单独核算成本、收益

根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，邮储银行代理营业机构办理商业银行有关业务无须设立独立的营业窗口

根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，邮储银行应当加强对代理营业机构的会计管理，确保代理营业机构的各项相关业务并账核算、并表管理

根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，代理营业机构管理人员和从业人员实行持证上岗制度。资格认证由邮储银行负责组织实施

根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，代理营业机构负责人可以兼任其他代理营业机构负责人

根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，代理营业机构与邮政企业营业机构应为同一营业场所。邮政企业的代办机构可以代理邮储银行业务

根据《邮政储蓄银行代理营业机构管理办法（修订）》的规定，邮政企业办理商业银行的有关业务，可以不通过设立代理营业机构办理，但必须以邮储银行名义开展业务

根据《国有及国有控股银行业金融机构“小金库”专项治理试点工作方案》的规定，专项治理试点的目标之一是为全面推进国有及国有控股金融机构“小金库”专项治理工作积累经验

根据《国有及国有控股银行业金融机构“小金库”专项治理试点工作方案》的规定，专项治理试点的范围包括：国有及国有控股商业银行、政策性银行、金融资产管理公司等银行业金融机构

根据《国有及国有控股银行业金融机构“小金库”专项治理试点工作方案》的规定，凡国有及国有控股银行业金融机构违反法律法规及其他有关规定，应列入而未列入符合规定的单位账簿的各项资金（含有价证券），均属于“小金库”

根据《国有及国有控股银行业金融机构“小金库”专项治理试点工作方案》的规定，以假发票、假合同、假票据等手段骗取资金设立“小金库”属于虚列支出设立“小金库”

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，支持中小商业银行在风险可控、成本可测的前提下设立社区支行、小微支行

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，中小商业银行应根据“定位小微、服务社区、规划先行、循序推进、均衡设置、持续经营”的思路推进社区支行、小微支行建设

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，社区支行、小微支行与传统支行相比，功能设置简约，定位特定特定区域和客户群体，服务便捷灵活

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，设立社区支行、小微支行应重点针对社区居民、小微企业有效客户数量多的大型社区和小微商圈

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，社区支行、小微支行单户授信余额不超过500万元

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》规定，中小商业银行应于社区支行、小微支行筹建后3个工作日向相关相关监管部门提出设立申请

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，相关监管部门应统筹中小商业银行主要监管指标、发展战略、风险管控能力、案发率、人才储备情况等因素审核社区支行、小微支行发展规划

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，相关监管部门应结合所在区域金融服务充分性以及上级管辖行的管控能力审核社区支行、小微支行发展规划

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于中小商业银行设立社区支行、小微支行有关事项的通知》的规定，社区支行、小微支行终止营业的，按有关规定，经相关监管部门审批后可终止营业

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于近年大型银行案件风险有关情况的通报》，银行业机构要关注近年来案件风险事件多发领域，对业务薄弱环节、关键岗位、关键人员等，综合运用多种手段加强日常风险监测预警，采取飞行检查、移位检查等方式进行重点排查，提高风险排查有效性，及时发现案件风险苗头，切实做到风险早预警、早发现、早处置和早化解

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于近年大型银行案件风险有关情况的通报》，银行业机构要严格根据案件问责的相关监管要求和内部管理规定，严肃追究相关人员案件和风险事件的管理责任和领导责任，对检查监督中应查未查、应发现未发现、发现未上报的也要严肃问责

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于加强大型银行内审监管充分发挥内审作用的意见》的规定，大型银行应根据监管部门现场检查工作需要，配合抽调银行内审人员参与现场检查。为保守商业机密，抽调的内审人员原则上不参加跨行别检查

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于加强大型银行内审监管充分发挥内审作用的意见》的规定，对于差别化、局部性问题或属于后续跟踪的检查项目，大型银行应根据监管部门指导，要求内审部门实施审计，审计结果报送监管部门，监管部门根据审计质量进行抽查

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于加强大型银行内审监管充分发挥内审作用的意见》的规定，大型银行内审部门开展属地审计，应将审计报告抄送审计对象所在地的银保监会派出机构；开展异地审计，可不用将审计报告抄送审计对象所在地的银保监会派出机构

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步提升大型银行县域金融服务能力的通知》，发展县域经济，对推动新型城镇化和农业现代化、推进新农村建设、实现“十三五”脱贫攻坚目标具有重要的战略意义。大型银行应完善信贷业务授权机制，无条件加大县支行信贷业务权限

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步提升大型银行县域金融服务能力的通知》，农业银行和其他有条件的大型银行应针对县域新型农业经营主体、特色农业、城镇化建设、农村一二三产业融合等重点领域，找准客户特点，细化客户分类，因地制宜确定县域客户准入标准

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步提升大型银行县域金融服务能力的通知》，大型银行应完善信贷业务授权机制，并完善授权后评价机制，加强对授权效果的监测、评估，实施授权的动态调整。对超出风险容忍度的县支行要及时上收相应的业务审批权限，对管理不善、出现风险的县支行要审慎授权，对信贷业务管理好的县支行可进一步扩大授权

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于深入推进大型银行普惠金融事业部相关工作的通知》，加快实现普惠金融业务商业可持续，推进信贷流程再造，就是要打造线上线下主动营销渠道，可视情况从存量小微客户中，筛选出潜在优质客户“白名单”并推送给一线客户经理

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于深入推进大型银行普惠金融事业部相关工作的通知》要求，加快实现普惠金融业务商业可持续，加强产品创新体系建设，要完善创新风控框架，防止不当创新引发风险

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于推进大型商业银行普惠金融事业部设立工作的通知》要求，要建立健全普惠金融条线型垂直管理架构，总行应当设立普惠金融事业部。分支机构应科学合理设置普惠金融事业部的前台业务部门和专业化经营机构

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于推进大型商业银行普惠金融事业部设立工作的通知》要求，普惠金融事业部中后台服务职责可由全行统一的中后台部门承担

根据《中国银行保险监督管理委员会办公厅关于进一步提高大型银行普惠金融事业部服务能力的通知》要求，大型银行要完善内部绩效考核机制，降低绩效考核中普惠业务权重，视情况对普惠金融业务发展较差的分支机构降档考核

根据《中国银行保险监督管理委员会办公厅关于进一步提高大型银行普惠金融事业部服务能力的通知》要求，即使有充分证据表明授信部门及工作人员根据有关法律法规、规章和规范性文件以及银行内部管理制度勤勉尽职地履行了职责的，也不能免除其全部责任

根据《中国银行保险监督管理委员会办公厅关于进一步提高大型银行普惠金融事业部服务能力的通知》要求，要强化通过互联网发放普惠金融贷款的风险管理，采取有效手段，对贷款资金使用、借款人信用情况、生产经营变化等进行跟踪检查和监控分析，确保资金用途合法合规，信贷资产风险可控

根据《中国银行保险监督管理委员会办公厅关于进一步提高大型银行普惠金融事业部服务能力的通知》要求，大型银行要适当延长建档立卡贫困户贷款期限，综合确定贷款额度，原则上不予以办理无还本续贷

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于印发大型银行监管强化标准（试行）的通知》，大型银行资本充足率的监控目标值公式中ε主要影响因素包括资本质量，资本补充能力，经济金融周期等

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于印发大型银行监管强化标准（试行）的通知》，拨备覆盖率指标中单家银行拨贷比和拨备覆盖率两项中任意一项均可作为其贷款损失准备的强化监管标准

根据《中国银监会办公厅关于印发大型银行监管强化标准（试行）的通知》，流动性监控指标为流动性覆盖率，流动性监测指标为净稳定资金比率

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

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?___