按照《国务院关于加强地方政府融资平台公司管理有关问题的通知》要求，地方各级政府及其所属部门、机构和主要依靠财政拨款的经费补助事业单位，可以以间接的形式为融资平台公司融资行为提供担保

《国务院关于加强地方政府融资平台公司管理有关问题的通知》（国发[2010]19号）下发前已经设立的融资平台公司中，对只承担公益性项目融资任务且主要依靠财政性资金偿还债务的融资平台公司，今后不得再承担融资任务

经对XX县国有资产营运公司债务全面清理核实，该公司被认定为“承担有稳定经营性收入的公益性项目融资任务且主要依靠自身收益偿还债务的融资平台公司”。根据《国务院关于加强地方政府融资平台公司管理有关问题的通知》（国发[2010]19号），应在落实偿债责任和措施后剥离XX县国有资产营运公司的融资业务，不再保留其融资平台职能

某县通过特许经营方式引进社会资本共同成立了特殊目的公司，由该公司负责合作项目的建设和运营。根据《国务院关于加强地方政府性债务管理的意见》（国发[2014]43号），该县仅对特殊目的公司按约定规则依法承担特许经营权、合理定价、财政补贴等相关责任，不承担投资者或特别目的公司的偿债责任

按照《金融许可证管理办法》规定，金融许可证颁发或更换时，应在银监会或其派出机构指定的全国公开发行的报纸上进行公告，被吊销时则无需在指定的报纸上进行公告

按照《金融许可证管理办法》规定，金融许可证应作为重要凭证专门管理。许可证保管、打印、颁发等职能应相互分离、相互制约，同时建立金融许可证颁发、收缴、销毁登记制度

《金融许可证管理办法》规定“金融许可证的保管应作为重要凭证专门管理。”因此某商业银行在其营业场所张贴公示其取得的金融许可证复印件，将原件存放其金库妥善保管。依据《金融许可证管理办法》规定，该银行这一作法是正确的

依据《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》规定，金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员应当在任职前获得任职资格核准，在获得任职资格核准前不得履职

依据《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》规定，外资金融机构驻华代表机构的董事（理事）和高级管理人员的任职资格管理不适用本办法

按照《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》规定，高级管理人员是指金融机构总部及分支机构管理层中对该机构经营管理、风险控制有决策权或重要影响力的各类人员

按照《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》规定，金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员应当在任职前获得任职资格核准，在获得任职资格核准前可以先行履职

按照《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》规定，金融机构高级管理人员在同一法人机构内同类性质平行调整职务或改任较低职务，需要重新申请任职资格

按照《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》规定，金融机构委派或聘任董事（理事）和高级管理人员前，应当对拟任人是否符合任职资格条件进行调查，并将记录调查过程和结果的文档纳入任职资格申请材料

金融机构对董事长（理事长）和高级管理人员进行年度审计的，董事长（理事长）和高级管理人员任期内的年度审计报告可视为其离任审计报告

范某曾任某村镇银行的董事长，在其任职期间因内部管理与控制制度不健全，引发重大金融犯罪案件；依据《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》，监管机构可视情节轻重及其后果取消其十年以上直至终身的任职资格

某股份制银行的福州分行行长应个人原因离职，该银行相关规定指定陈某代为履职。依据《银行业金融机构董事（理事）和高级管理人员任职资格管理办法》，该银行应当在指定之后五日内向监管机构报告

某银行副行长张某任职期间多次违章驾车，其中一次酒后驾车被交警处理。面对该情形，该银行应令其限期改正或停止其任职，并将相关情况报告监管机构

某银行拟提拔林某为副行长，调查中发现林某的表姐夫张某持有该银行5%以上股份，且张某控制的家族企业从该银行获得的授信总额超过上述股份的股权净值。从林某任职的独立性考虑，该银行不应任命其为副行长

滨海银行行长离任后，为不影响经营管理及业务开展，滨海银行应及时任命接替人刘某为行长，行使相关职权，同步向监管机构提出任职资格申请

富民银行海滨支行行长离职后，为不影响经营管理及业务开展，富民银行按照公司章程指定海滨支行原副行长王某代为履职。富民银行须在指定之后三个工作日内向监管机构报告上述情况

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，高级管理人员任职资格核准要遵循统一的考核、考试和考察程序

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，所有非银行金融机构的开业核准均由所在地银监局审批

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，政策性银行、商业银行、金融资产管理公司高级管理人员在同一机构内部平级调岗转任任职资格审批仍实行审批制

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，银监会机关各监管部门、各银监局对不再审批、改为报告制管理的事项，要坚决及时停止审批，不得拆分、合并或重组后以新的名义、条目变相审批

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，对取消的行政审批事项，应简化报告内容，规范报告行为，不得设置前置性审批条件

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，政策性银行、商业银行、金融资产管理公司高级管理人员在同一机构内部平级调岗转任时，实行事后报告制，填写备案登记表，并提交原岗位离任审计报告

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，各银监局可在银监会授权范围内进一步深化简政放权工作，将监管审批权限进一步下放至银监分局

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，规范任职资格审查，对董事和高级管理人员任职资格核准要遵循统一的考核、考试和考察程序

按照《中国银监会办公厅关于推进简政放权改进市场准入工作有关事项的通知》规定，除同级转岗和中管银行业金融机构“三长”正职之间的转任不再进行专业考试外，其余均应按照“三考”程序规范操作

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，小企业金融服务专营机构可申请单独颁发金融许可证和营业执照

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，各银行设立专营机构，应建立独立的激励约束机制。对小企业金融服务的业绩考核要独立于其他银行业务，制定专门的业绩考核和奖惩机制，加大资源配置力度，注重经营绩效和风险管理相结合，探索多种激励约束方式

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，各银行设立专营机构，应建立独立有效的风险管理机制。采取与小企业性质、规模相适应的风险管理技术，对授信调查、授信审批、贷款发放、风险分类、风险预警、不良资产处置等各个环节的风险进行管控

根据银监会《关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》的规定，各银行设立专营机构，应根据小企业的特点和实际业务情况设立合理的风险容忍度。同时，建立授信尽职免责制度，在考核整体质量及综合回报的基础上，根据实际情况和有关规定追究或免除有关当事人的相应责任，做到尽职者免责，失职者问责

达信银行将新设立的小企业金融服务专营机构命名为达信快捷贷综合服务中心。依据《中国银监会关于银行建立小企业金融服务专营机构的指导意见》，该专营机构命名是否正确？

根据银监会办公厅《关于银行业金融机构分支机构变更营业场所问题的通知》规定，乡镇金融机构分支机构营业场所不得跨乡镇变更

根据银监会办公厅《关于银行业金融机构分支机构变更营业场所问题的通知》规定，同城支行可以在同一城市内变更营业场所

根据银监会办公厅《关于银行业金融机构分支机构变更营业场所问题的通知》规定，分行级专营机构可以在同一城市内变更营业场所

根据银监会办公厅《关于银行业金融机构分支机构变更营业场所问题的通知》规定，外资银行营业性机构的分支机构在境内同一行政区划内变更营业场所，适用事前报告制

根据银监会办公厅《关于银行业金融机构分支机构变更营业场所问题的通知》规定，银行业金融机构分支机构变更营业场所的，应直接向所在地银监局或银监分局报告

根据银监会办公厅《关于银行业金融机构分支机构变更营业场所问题的通知》规定，非银行金融机构的营业性分支机构迁址使用事前审批制

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___

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___