按照《中国银监会关于规范中长期贷款还款方式的通知》的规定，对于中长期贷款提前还款部分，银行应按照实际用款期限，相应折算成同期限的贷款利率计算本息

按照《中国银监会关于规范中长期贷款还款方式的通知》的规定，对于新增中长期贷款，银行要根据项目建设运营周期合理确定贷款期限和建设期内宽限期内及本息科学的还款方式

按照《中国银监会关于规范中长期贷款还款方式的通知》的规定，对于在建设期中的中长期贷款，如果项目逾期未开工，或是超过原定建设期未建成完工的，要充分考虑逾期时间长短对贷款风险产生的影响，对贷款风险分类情况立即进行适当调整

**市土地储备中心隶属于**市国土资源局。为推动**市城市化进程，加快社会主义新农村建设步伐，根据市人大常委会和市政府要求，*行向**市土地储备中心发放**区域土地储备项目贷款B万元。2011年1月，按照银监会融资平台贷款合同整改工作要求，该行与**市政府及**土地储备中心协商，增加补充条款，将原本分季偿付利息、到期一次还本的还款方式，调整为每年两次还本，利随本清

按照《中国银监会关于规范银行业金融机构搭桥贷款业务的通知》的规定，搭桥贷款期限可以根据借款人的经营情况展期

按照《流动资金贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，流动资金贷款是指贷款人向企（事）业法人或国家规定可以作为借款人的其他组织发放的用于借款人日常生产经营周转的本外币贷款

按照《流动资金贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，贷款人应该根据借款人营运资金需求合理设定流动资金贷款的业务品种和期限，以满足借款人需求，实现对贷款资金回笼的有效控制

按照《流动资金贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，贷款人受托支付是指贷款人根据借款人的提款申请和支付委托，将贷款通过借款人账户支付给符合合同约定用途的有关交易对象

按照《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，个人贷款是指贷款人向符合条件的自然人发放用于个人消费等用途的本外币贷款

按照《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，个人贷款用途应符合法律法规规定和国家有关政策，贷款人不得发放无指定用途的个人贷款

按照《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，贷款人可以将贷款调查的全部事项委托第三方完成

<FONT face=Verdana>某银行与某进口汽车经销商签订了业务合作协议，双方互相推荐客户开展个人汽车消费贷款业务，其中客户张某提供了与某进口汽车经销商签订的总价60万元的《汽车买卖合同》一份，首付款20万元的刷卡单及收款收据各一份，银行根据合作协议约定，委托合作汽车经销商对张某开展贷前调查，在贷前调查的基础上，银行经过审查审批，同意给予张某汽车消费贷款40万元，期限1年，利率为人行同期基准利率上浮10%，按季付息，到期还本，张某提供购买的车辆作为抵押担保，经销商提供阶段性连带责任担保。根据《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，在贷款支付过程中，贷款金额未超过50万元，可以由借款人自主支付，支付合规。</FONT>

按照《个人贷款管理暂行办法》规定，信用卡透支不适用《个人贷款管理暂行办法》

<FONT face=Verdana>某银行与某进口汽车经销商签订了业务合作协议，双方互相推荐客户开展个人汽车消费贷款业务，其中客户张某提供了与某进口汽车经销商签订的总价60万元的《汽车买卖合同》一份，首付款20万元的刷卡单及收款收据各一份，银行根据合作协议约定，委托合作汽车经销商对张某开展贷前调查，在贷前调查的基础上，银行经过审查审批，同意给予张某汽车消费贷款40万元，期限1年，利率为人行同期基准利率上浮10%，按季付息，到期还本，张某提供购买的车辆作为抵押担保，经销商提供阶段性连带责任担保。根据《个人贷款管理暂行办法》的规定，贷款人可以将贷款调查事项全部委托给汽车经销商开展，但应注意需在业务合作协议中明确约定双方的权利义务，加强对汽车经销商的管控，同时严格审查审批，做法符合规定。</FONT>

按照《关于商业银行知识产权质押贷款业务的指导意见》的规定，条件成熟的商业银行可以将知识产权质押贷款作为专门的贷款产品管理

按照《关于商业银行知识产权质押贷款业务的指导意见》的规定，商业银行可以委托专业评估机构对出质知识产权进行评估，因为商业银行不可以自行评估出质知识产权

按照《关于商业银行知识产权质押贷款业务的指导意见》的规定，商业银行发放知识产权质押贷款只要确保商业银行为优先受偿人，就可以不必办理质权登记

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，以农村集体经济组织同一经营管理的林权进行抵押的，银行业金融机构应要求抵押人提供依法经本集体经济组织二分之一以上成员同意或三分之二以上村民代表同意的决议

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押期间未经抵押权人书面同意，采伐审批机关不得批准或发放林木采伐许可证

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款中以森林或林木资产进行抵押的，可以要求其林地使用权同时进行抵押，也可以改变林地的性质和用途

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款的期限不应超过林地使用权的剩余期限

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，部份林权抵押贷款可以纳入我省小微企业贷款风险补偿范围

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款中以共有林权进行抵押的，银行金融机构应要求其提供承包合同

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，要加大林业经济投入，对于林权未登记、权属不清或存在争议的森林、林木和林地不应发放林权抵押贷款

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，用材林、经济林、薪炭林的采伐迹地、火烧迹地的林地使用权不能用来抵押林权

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款要重点满足企业等为主体的林业生产经营、森林资源培育和开发、林下经济发展等

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款中营造林为抵押物的贷款期限不可超过15年

按照《中国银监会 国家林业局关于林权抵押贷款的实施意见》规定，林权抵押贷款中以共有林权进行抵押的，银行金融机构应要求其提供共有人同意抵押的书面同意意见书

根据《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》，审慎监管的要求，客户资料如有变动商业银行应要求客户进行口头通知，进一步核实后在档案中重新记载

根据《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》，商业银行应根据各环节授信分析评价的结果，形成书面的分析评价报告。分析评价报告报出后，不得在原稿上作原则性更改；如需作原则性更改，应另附说明

根据《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》，商业银行对客户调查和客户资料的验证应以实地调查为主，间接调查为辅。必要时，可通过外部征信机构对客户资料的真实性进行核实

按照《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》规定，商业银行可对用途为从事股票、期货、金融衍生产品等投资的业务进行授信

按照《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》（银监发[2004]51号）规定，商业银行对客户调查和客户资料的验证应以实地调查为主，间接调查为辅。必要时，可通过外部征信机构对客户资料的真实性进行核实

按照《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》（银监发[2004]51号）规定，授信业务部门授信工作人员和授信管理部门授信工作人员任何一方需对客户资料进行补充时，须通知另外一方，但原则上须由授信管理部门授信工作人员办理

按照《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》（银监发[2004]51号）规定，商业银行应对第二还款来源进行分析评价，确认保证人的保证主体资格和代偿能力，以及抵押、质押的合法性、充分性和可实现性

按照《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》（银监发[2004]51号）规定，商业银行应根据客户偿还能力和现金流量，对客户授信进行调整，包括展期，增加或缩减授信，要求借款人提前还款，并决定是否将该笔授信列入观察名单或划入问题授信

按照《商业银行授信工作尽职指引》（银监发[2004]51号）规定，商业银行应支持授信工作尽职调查人员独立行使尽职调查职能，调查可采取现场或非现场的方式进行。必要时，可委托专业机构开展特定的授信尽职调查工作

根据《商业银行集团客户授信业务风险管理指引》的规定，商业银行持有的集团客户成员企业发行的公司债券、企业债券、短期融资券、中期票据等债券资产以及通过衍生产品等交易行为所产生的信用风险暴露不要纳入集团客户授信业务进行风险管理

根据《商业银行集团客户授信业务风险管理指引》的规定，根据审慎监管的要求，银行业监管机构不可调低单个商业银行单一集团客户授信余额与资本净额的比例

根据《商业银行集团客户授信业务风险管理指引》的规定，商业银行对跨国集团客户在境内机构授信时，除了要对其境内机构进行调查外，还要关注其境外公司的背景、信用评级、经营和财务、担保和重大诉讼等情况，并在调查报告中记录相关情况

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。

___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___