按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，董（理）事、监事和高级管理人员应认真执行国家方针政策，恪守职业道德，服从国家宏观调控，维护大局。善于管理，公道正派，作风民主，坚持原则。履行社会责任

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员不得投资股票

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员应做到客户至上，诚实守信，优质服务，执行首问负责制

按照《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引（修订）》规定，银行业金融机构从业人员本人消费贷款可用于买卖股票

某银行员工陈某是海峡人才市场劳务派遣人员，未与银行直接签订劳务合同，因此不需要遵守《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引》。根据《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引》，某的看法是否正确？

在某银行工作的员工甲对自己的收入不太满意，就私自到某保险公司申请兼职，利用业余时间营销业务，增加收入，根据《银行业金融机构从业人员职业操守指引》，员工甲的行为是否正确？

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员不得以变相提高存款利率或向存款经办人和关系人支付费用或佣金等方式违规吸储

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员不得借银行名义或利用银行员工身份私自代客投资理财

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员可利用银行员工或银行客户的个人账户为他人过渡资金，或借用银行客户的个人账户为银行员工过渡资金

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员可自办或参与经营典当行、小额贷款公司、担保公司等机构

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构及其从业人员不得向他人提供与自己经济实力不符的个人担保，不得向民间借贷资金提供担保

按照《银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构高级管理人员违规参与非法融资活动的，可视情节轻重，采取罚款、调离岗位直至取消高级管理人员任职资格的措施

甲向某银行员工乙所在网点存入了C万元的个人定期存款。为答谢中间介绍人丙，乙向丙支付了1万元的佣金。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》的规定，乙此举违反规定

某银行员工甲介绍亲朋好友向有需要的客户发放高利贷，但其本人并无参与。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于严禁银行业金融机构及其从业人员参与民间融资活动的通知》的规定，甲此举并不违规

按照《银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构参与地下钱庄非法活动的，监管部门可依法予以警告，情节严重的，可以没收违法所得或责令停业整顿

按照《银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构参与地下钱庄非法活动的，对负有个人责任或直接领导责任的高级管理人员，可根据情况轻重及后果，取消其一定期限直至终身的任职资格

按照《银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》规定，对负有个人责任的银行员工，除责令银行给予其纪律处分外，可以根据情节轻重及后果，禁止其一定期限直至终身从事银行业工作

按照《银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构要加强员工行为排查，严禁银行员工为揽存、赚手续费充当地下钱庄的资金掮客

按照《银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》规定，银行业金融机构机构网点可为地下钱庄提供现金保管

某银行业金融机构参与地下钱庄活动，监管部门吊销了其经营许可证。该银行负责人认为处罚过重，参与地下钱庄活动可以罚款、停业整顿，但不可吊销经营许可证。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》的规定，该负责人说法是否正确

某银行制定的地下钱庄非法活动交易的筛选规则中，特别关注企业间的大额转账交易及大额结售汇业务，为减轻工作量，对于交易对手为个人账户的交易适当放宽监控标准。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于防范银行业金融机构员工参与地下钱庄非法活动的通知》的规定，该银行制定的规则是否正确

按照《关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，商业银行应禁止离行识别验证，禁止上门服务

按照《关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，商业银行执行个人存款开户管理有关规定，对本行员工代理开户的，可以适当放宽对代理人的相关资料进行审核和登记

按照《关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，商业银行可以根据客户的意愿，将须交付的网银安全工具邮寄给客户

按照《关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，商业银行可研究开发离行式识别验证方式，对特殊客户做好柜台延伸服务，必要时提供上门服务

按照《关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，商业银行可探索建立员工在职状态查询制度，防止非本行员工假借银行名义办理业务

按照《关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，商业银行应培育全员合规风险“零容忍“思想，建立有效的问责制度，严格责任追究

某商业银行接待一名客户办理取款业务，由于该客户重病在床，急需取款用于疾病，且该业务必须本人亲自办理。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，该银行可提供上门服务

某商业银行分行的一名柜员替国外亲戚办理开户业务，业务经办人为本行其它支行的柜员。依据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，禁止员工在本行的网点代理他人开户

某商业银行监察部近日发现某员工账户与银行某个人贷款客户账户资金往来异常，依据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，监察部通过问卷调查、电话回访等方式向银行客户了解银行员工是否参与民间借贷

某商业银行近期出现客户因钓鱼网站上当受骗，导致账户资金损失的案件风险，为防范网络支付风险，依据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》规定，该商业银行可与客户协商约定网银单笔和单月累计转账上限，合规办理转账业务

按照《商业银行金融创新指引》规定，商业银行应优化内部组织结构和业务流程，形成前台营销服务职能完善、中台风险控制严密、后台保障支持有力的业务运行架构，建立适应金融创新的“部门银行”，实现前、中、后台的相互分离与有效的协调配合

按照《商业银行金融创新指引》规定，商业银行应能识别并妥善处理好金融创新引发的各类利益冲突，公平地处理客户与第三方服务提供者之间的利益冲突

按照《商业银行金融创新指引》规定，商业银行应严格界定和区分银行资产和客户资产，进行有效的风险隔离管理，对客户的资产进行充分保护

甲银行福州分行在某次检查中被发现存在违反《商业银行金融创新指引》的行为，福建银行业协会将根据有关法律法规予以处罚，并采取其他相应的监管措施

按照《中国银监会关于深化小微企业金融服务的意见》规定，银监会鼓励商业银行先行先试，创新小微企业金融产品和服务方式，提升小微企业金融服务的广度和深度

按照《中国银监会关于深化小微企业金融服务的意见》规定，积极引导商业银行在合理有效利用现有征信系统的基础上，加强其他相关信息资源的搜集，提高小微企业金融服务的质效

按照《中国银监会关于深化小微企业金融服务的意见》规定，在权重法下对符合“商业银行对单家企业（或企业集团）的风险暴露不超过500万元，且占本行信用风险暴露总额的比例不高于0.5%”条件的小微企业贷款适用50%的风险权重，在内部评级法下比照零售贷款适用优惠的资本监管要求

按照《中国银监会关于深化小微企业金融服务的意见》规定，小微企业金融服务专营机构可以为小微企业之外的其他企业提供相关服务，并严格遵循“四单原则”

按照《中国银监会关于深化小微企业金融服务的意见》规定，商业银行要根据小微企业不同发展阶段的金融需求特点，由单纯提供融资服务转向提供集融资、结算、理财、咨询等为一体的综合性金融服务

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___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___