根据《贷款通则》的规定，借款人在征得贷款人同意后，有权向第三人转让债务

根据《贷款通则》的规定，自营贷款和特定贷款，除按规定计收手续费之外，不得收取其他任何费用

根据《贷款通则》的规定，保证贷款应当由保证人与贷款人签订保证合同，或保证人在借款合同上载明与贷款人协商一致的保证条款，加盖保证人的法人公章，并由保证人的法定代表人或其授权代理人签署姓名

根据《贷款通则》的规定，一个借款人只能有一个贷款主办行，主办行应当随基本账户的变更而变更

根据《贷款通则》的规定，各级行政部门和事业单位、供销合作社等合作经济组织、农村合作基金会和其他基金会，经有关部门批准可以经营存贷款等金融业务

根据《贷款通则》的规定，对实行整体股份制改造的借款人，应当明确其所欠贷款债务由改造前公司全部承担

根据《贷款通则》的规定，贷款人应当按照中国人民银行规定的贷款利率的上限，确定每笔贷款利率，并在借款合同中载明

按照《固定资产贷款管理暂行办法》规定，贷款人应在合同中与借款人约定提款条件以及贷款资金支付接受贷款人管理和控制等与贷款使用相关的条款，提款条件应包括与贷款同比例的投资额相匹配、项目实际进度与资本金已足额到位等要求

按照《固定资产贷款管理暂行办法》规定，贷款人应在合同中与借款人约定对借款人相关账户实施监控，必要时可约定专门的贷款发放账户和还款准备金账户

按照《固定资产贷款管理暂行办法》规定， 对确实无法收回的固定资产不良贷款，贷款人按照相关规定对贷款进行核销后，应继续向债务人追索或进行市场化处置

某房地产项目建设总投资8000万元，A银行经审批给予借款人固定资产贷款3000万元，借款人拟对外支付一笔450万元的材料采购款，借款人提出了提款申请和用款说明，A银行经审查，按照《固定资产贷款管理暂行办法》规定，同意将该笔贷款资金发放至借款企业的账户，由其自主支付，资金使用方式合法合规

<FONT face=Verdana>&nbsp;某市城乡建设发展公司是该市市政基础设施建设和综合性旧城片区（棚户区）改造和保障房建设业务的主要经营主体，该城乡建设发展公司年初制定了全年的建设计划，在建项目10个，新开工项目5个，涉及项目总投资额约70亿元。因项目建设需要，公司向某银行申请固定资产贷款，并报送了年度所有项目的建设用款计划，因为各个项目的建设进度不一，因此公司与银行协商获得一个贷款总额15亿元，在贷款总额内由公司在具体项目间调配用款。双方签订了一份固定资产贷款合同，贷款合同用途约定为“用于棚户区改造和保障房建设使用”。合同约定符合《固定资产贷款管理暂行办法》的规定。</FONT>

按照《项目融资业务指引》规定，贷款人从事项目融资业务，只要识别和评估融资项目中建设期存在的风险

按照《项目融资业务指引》规定，贷款人应当要求将符合抵质押条件的项目资产和／或项目预期收益等权利为贷款设定担保，并可以根据需要，将项目发起人持有的项目公司股权为贷款设定质押担保

按照《项目融资业务指引》规定，贷款人应当与借款人约定专门的项目收入账户，并要求部分项目收入进入约定账户，并按照事先约定的条件和方式对外支付

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，代理行应勤勉尽责，因代理行行为过失或不作为导致银团利益受损，银团贷款牵头行有权根据银团贷款协议的约定更换代理行，并要求代理行对相关损失进行赔偿。具体约定可在银团贷款协议等文件中载明

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，为提高信息备忘录等银团资料的独立性、公正性和真实性，牵头行不可聘请外部中介机构如会计师事务所、资产评估事务所、律师事务所及相关技术专家负责评审编写有关信息及资料、出具意见书

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，贷款到期后，借款人应按期如数归还贷款本息。借款人提前还款的，应至少在最近一个预定还款日的60个营业日前通知代理行，并在征得银团贷款成员同意后，根据银团贷款协议所列的相关贷款余额的到期次序，按先到期先还的原则偿还最前期贷款本息

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，银团贷款存续期间，银团贷款成员原则上不得在银团之外向同一项目提供有损银团其他成员利益的贷款或其他授信

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，银团贷款的收费应遵循“谁借款、谁付费”的原则，由借款人支付。其费用种类和金额由借贷双方协商确定，可以在利率基础上加点确定

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，借款人应严格按照银团贷款协议约定，保证贷款用途，及时向银团贷款成员划转贷款本息，如实向银团贷款成员提供有关情况

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，银团贷款存续期间，通常由牵头行或代理行负责定期召开银团会议，也可由三分之二以上的银团贷款成员共同提议召开

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，银团贷款存续期间，银团贷款成员原则上不得在银团之外向同一项目提供有损银团其他成员利益的贷款或其他授信

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，借款人出现违约事项时，牵头行应及时组织银团贷款成员对违约贷款进行清收、保全、追偿或其他处置

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，银团贷款的收费的费用种类和金额由借贷双方协商确定，为方便计算，可直接在利率基础上加点确定

按照《银团贷款业务指引》规定，银团贷款是指由两家或两家以上银行基于相同贷款项目，依据同一贷款协议，按约定时间和比例，通过代理行向借款人提供的本外币贷款或授信业务

A银行发起并筹组了某港口建设项目的15亿的银团贷款，并作为该银团贷款的牵头行，对该项目提供了2.5亿的贷款，A银行的行为符合《中国银监会关于印发<银团贷款业务指引>的通知》的相关要求

按照《商业银行房地产贷款风险管理指引》规定，商业银行应建立相应的考核流程，确保工作人员遵守上述风险政策及不同类型贷款的操作审核标准

按照《商业银行房地产贷款风险管理指引》规定，商业银行应严格落实房地产开发企业贷款的担保，确保担保真实、合法、有效

按照《商业银行房地产贷款风险管理指引》规定，商业银行应对所有的房地产开发贷款企业销售款进行监控，在收回贷款本息之前，防止将销售款挪作他用

按照《商业银行房地产贷款风险管理指引》规定，商业银行对自雇人士申请个人住房贷款进行审核时，可以仅凭个人开具的收入证明来判断其还款能力

按照《商业银行房地产贷款风险管理指引》规定，商业银行应区别判断抵押物状况。抵押物价值的确定以该房产在该次买卖交易中的成交价或评估价的较高者为准

某商业银行对某房地产开发企业的房地产开发项目提供贷款，该项目的资本金为2.5亿，商业银行提供房地产开发贷款10亿，该商业银行的行为符合中国银监会关于印发《商业银行房地产贷款风险管理指引》的通知（银监发【2004】57号）关于房地产贷款项目资本金的比例要求

某商业银行拟对A房地产开发公司的房地产开发项目提供贷款，该商业银行经调查，A公司对项目仅取得国有土地使用权证、建设用地规划许可证、建设工程规划许可证，尚未取得建筑工程施工许可证，但仍然给予A 公司发放贷款2000万元，该商业银行的符合中国银监会关于印发《商业银行房地产贷款风险管理指引》的通知（银监发【2004】57号）关于房地产贷款项目资本金的比例要求

按照《中国银监会关于进一步加强房地产行业授信风险管理的通知》规定，各商业银行应根据单项业务或产品的风险管理需要，开展房地产专项压力测试

按照《中国银监会关于进一步加强房地产行业授信风险管理的通知》规定，商业银行一旦发现房地产企业存在“假按揭”、“假首付”、“假房价”等问题，一律停止向其发放个人住房贷款和开发贷款，同时应重新对房地产企业所在集团进行信用评级，调整信用额度，无需移送司法机关

按照《中国银监会关于进一步加强房地产行业授信风险管理的通知》规定，商业银行要以借款人稳定的收入来源为基础确定贷款额度，不可靠的预期收入也可以作为确定还款来源和期限的依据

按照《中国银监会关于进一步加强房地产行业授信风险管理的通知》规定，个人住房抵押贷款的借款合同应当面核验借款人身份证明后由借款人当场签字，如果借款人委托他人代签的，签字人必须出具委托人委托其签字并经公证的委托授权书，商业银行不得委托中介或房地产商代为办理

按照《中国银监会关于进一步加强房地产行业授信风险管理的通知》规定，个人住房抵押贷款的抵押物他项权利证书可由商业银行直接到抵押登记部门领取，也可委托中介机构办理

按照《中国银监会关于进一步加强房地产行业授信风险管理的通知》规定，商业银行应定期对房地产抵押物进行价值重估和动态监测，对抵押物价值不足以抵补贷款风险的应采取追加押品或压缩贷款等措施

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___

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。