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。

贷款风险分类通过对影响债务人偿还债务可能性的诸多因素的定 性与定量分析评估，合理划分风险类别。介于相邻类别之间的信贷资 产原则上应归入低级档次

贷款人应加强贷款资金发放后的管理，针对借款人所属行业及经 营特点，通过定期与不定期现场检查与非现场监测，分析借款人经营、 财务、信用、支付、担保及融资数量和渠道变化等状况，掌握各种影 响借款人偿债能力的风险因素

贷款人在不损害借款人合法权益和风险可控的前提下，可将贷款 调查中的部分特定事项审慎委托第三方代为办理，但必须明确第三方 的资质条件

贷款审查应对贷款调查内容的合法性、合理性、准确性进行全面 审查，重点关注调查人的尽职情况和借款人的偿还能力、诚信状况、 担保情况、抵（质）押比率、风险程度等

贷款重组后仍不能正常归还本息划为可疑类贷款

办理流动资金贷款应合理测算借款人营运资金需求，审慎确定借 款人的流动资金授信总额及具体贷款的额度，不得超过借款人的实际 需求发放流动资金贷款

对借款人违反合同约定的行为应发现而未发现，或虽发现但未及 时釆取有效措施的，按照省联社有关规定对有关责任人进行责任认定和处罚

发放自然人贷款所辖信用社（行）只能向一户家庭中的一个人贷 款，不得一个人在多家信用社（行）贷款或多个人在一家信用社（行） 贷款

放任借款人将流动资金贷款用于固定资产投资、股权投资以及国 家禁止生产、经营的领域和用途的，按照省联社有关规定对有关责任 人进行责任认定和处罚

固定资产贷款的借款人项目进度落后于贷款资金使用进度农信社 应与借款人协商补充贷款发放和支付条件，或根据合同约定停止贷款 资金的发放和支付

挤占、挪用贷款，拒不改正的，农信社停止支付借款人尚未使用 的贷款，并按合同约定，下发《河南省农村信用社提前收回贷款通知 书》，要求其归还贷款

借款人釆用隐瞒事实等不正当手段取得贷款的划为次级类贷款

借款人处于停产、半停产状态、固定资产贷款项目处于停、缓建 状态划为可疑类贷款

借款人的管理层出现重大意见分歧或者法定代表人和主要经营者 的品行出现了不利于贷款偿还的变化可划为关注类贷款

借款人改制后，难以落实农村信用社债权或虽落实债权，但不能 正常还本付息划为可疑类贷款

借款人签订长期供销合同、使用金融衍生工具或者发起人提供资 金缺口担保等方式，在项目融资中可以有效分散经营期风险

借款人申请流动资金贷款必须有明确、合法的贷款用途，流动资 金贷款不得用于、股权等投资，不得用于国家禁止生产、经营的领域 和用途，可以用于固定资产投资

借款人实际已资不抵债划为可疑类贷款

客户部门受理借款申请后，应指派一名客户经理对个人贷款申请 内容和相关情况的真实性、准确性、完整性进行调查核实，形成调查 评价意见

企事业单位贷款按照《贷款风险分类指导原则》的要求，在对借 款人财务因素、非财务因素以及第二还款来源状况等各项指标进行全 面、综合分析的基础上分类

全省农信社要建立信贷主动退出机制，有针对性地优化存量资产， 加大对限制性行业贷款的清收力度对出现风险因素但仍有正常现金 流量和支付能力的企业，要釆取逐渐退出的策略，通过增加抵押物和 担保来保证贷款的安全

损失类贷款：在釆取所有可能的措施或一切必要的法律程序之后， 债权仍然无法收回，或只能收回极少部分

同一介质上有不同保管期限的信贷档案，应按最长期限保管

新建立信贷业务关系，且借款人信用评级在AA级（不含）以下 的流动资金贷款应釆取受托支付方式

信用社统一授信管理必须做到“先授信、后用信”，遵循主体统 一、区别对待、动态调整、权限管理的原则

银行承兑汇票贴现，属于低风险业务，一般划入正常类

在对信用证、承兑、担保等表外信贷资产分类时，原则上，对该 客户表外信贷资产分类不得高于对其近期表内信贷资产业务分类等 级

展期后的贷款按新增贷款进行管理，展期贷款的风险分类最高 只能列为关注类

中期贷款，是指贷款期限在1年以上（不含1年）5年以下（含5 年）的贷款，其中流资贷款期限为1年以上（不含1年）3年以下（含 3年）

自然人贷款应当根据本地实际实行调查、审查审批分离，将调查、 审查审批环节职责分解，由不同岗位承担，实行相互制约

对于变现能力差的抵押物，抵押率应适当降低

公司申请借款，由第三方提供抵押担保的，尽可能让第三方同时 签订保证合同，这样有利于风险发生时贷款的回收和抵押物的处置

依据《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

对本金逾期或欠息超过60天的信贷业务，可以进行贷后临时检查

对不能按借款合同约定期限归还的贷款，应当按规定加罚利息

非现场检查要利用人民银行借贷登记咨询系统、电话、网络、媒 体等工具或渠道进行信息收集和借贷分析

借款人提前偿还部分本金的，要偿付偿还截至该提前还款日前一 天（含该日）所发生的相应利息

客户经理对贷款贷后管理负直接管理责任

调阅信贷档案在经有权人同意后可以抄录、照相、复印或复制， 可以将信贷档案拆封和借出、不得涂改、圈划

在还本付息日第二天营业时间终了前，贷款人未向银行提交偿还 贷款本息的支票或支凭条的，并且其偿债账户或其他存款账户中的存 款不足以由银行主动扣款的，该笔贷款即为可疑贷款