中国梦为坚持和发展中国特色社会主义注入崭新内涵。

中国梦最大的特点,就是把国家民族个人作为一个命运共同体。

实现中国梦，意味着中国将成为世界第一超级大国。

只有中国特色社会道路，才能发展中国、稳定中国。

中国越发展,对世界和平与发展就越有利。

实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦是各民族共同的梦，也是各民族自己的梦。

1997年党的十五大正式宣布，人民生活总体达到了小康。

2002年党的十六大提出了全面建设小康社会的奋斗目标。

党的19大报告提出，全面建设社会现代化强国的进程分三个阶段来安排。

从全面建成小康社会，到基本实现现代化，再到全面建成社会主义现代化强国，是新时代，中国特色社会主义发展的战略安排。

从2035年到本世纪中叶, 建成社会主义现代化强国时，我国的核心竞争力名列世界前茅，经济总量和市场规模超越其他国家。

距离实现中华民族伟大复兴的目标越来越近，我们的梦想将一夜成真。

中国梦是人民的梦，也是世界的梦。

实现祖国的完全统一是近代以来中华民族最伟大的梦想。

实现中华民族伟大复兴是海内外中华儿女的共同梦想。

改革开放之后，在解决人民温饱问题、人民生活总体上达到小康水平这两个目标提前实现的基础上，我们党又提出“两个一百年”奋斗目标。

从十九大到二十大，是“两个一百年”奋斗目标的历史交汇期。

中华民族伟大复兴，绝不是轻轻松松、敲锣打鼓就能实现的。

五大发展理念缺一不可。哪一个发展理念贯彻不到位，发展进程都会受到影响。唯有统一贯彻，出实招、破难题，才能如期全面建成小康社会。

创新注重的是解决发展动力问题，协调注重的是解决发展不平衡问题，绿色注重解决的是人与自然和谐的问题，开放注重的是解决发展内外联动的问题，共享注重的是解决社会公平正义问题。

现代经济体系的总体思路是贯彻新发展理念。

坚持创新发展，就是要构建创新体制，加快形成有利于创新发展的市场环境、产权环境、投融资体制、分配制度、人才培养引进使用机制。

现代化经济体系是构建市场机制有效，微观主体有活力.宏观调控有度的经济体制。

资源化应该放在循环经济原则的首位，全过程都必须做到无毒化、无害化。

坚持绿色发展，加快建设非主体功能区，发挥非主体功能区作为国土空间开发保护记住制度的主要。

五位一体总体布局：经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设、环境建设。

建设社会主义文化强国，增强国家文化软实力，必须坚持社会主义先进文化前进方向，坚持中国特色社会主义文化发展道路，坚持以人民为中心的工作导向，进一步深化文化体制改革。

我国经济发展的基本特征就是由高速增长转向高质量发展阶段。

新常态不是一个筐子，不要什么都往里装。

社会主要矛盾发生变化后，我国最大的国情仍是处于并将长期处于社会主义初级阶段。

供给侧结构性改革就是从提高供给质量出发，用改革的办法推进结构性调整，矫正要素配置扭曲，扩大有效供给，提高供给结构对需求变化的适应性和灵活性，提高全要素生产率，更好满足广大人民群众的需要。其根本目的是提高生产力水平。

缩小收入差距，就是要增加乡村居民收入，降低城市居民收入。

分类扶持贫困家庭，就是要对生态特别重要和脆弱的实施扶贫搬迁。

我国现阶段市场体系不完善、市场机制不健全，市场主体创新能力较弱的基本国情下需要更好地发挥政府这只创新驱动“有形之手”的作用。

环境民事责任实施无过错责任原则。

加快建设国家自主创新示范区，在创新创业方面打破禁区，在全国全面推进创新改革试验，并向全国推广。

人民当家作主是社会主义民主政治的本质和核心。

市场经济是中国特色社会主义的经济运行基础。

民主政治是中国特色社会主义的重要保障。

一个民族，一个国家都有它自己的文化。我们中华民族有优秀的文化，应当继承发扬，同时要创新先进的文化，并吸收国外优秀的文化。

是 ___

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

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?___