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。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___

《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___

为调整和规范人类社会生活三大领域，相应分别形成了___

柜面智能电子化系统试运行上线后，1906柜员轧账传票摆放顺序为：总轧账单－非无纸化轧账单－重空轧账单－非无纸化柜员凭证和附件资料（包括有操作无流水）－无纸化轧账单－无纸化附件资料，传票编号从1、2、3……顺序编制。

十五、活期保证金结息后，利息自动入活期存款账户内。

单位活期存款账户计息期间遇到利率调整分段计息。

现金存款不支持隔日冲账，如串户等原因要求的隔日冲账只能通过2406转账进行调整。

被冻结的款项，不属于赃款的，冻结期应计付利息，在扣划时利息应付给债权单位，属于赃款的，冻结期间不计付利息。

对单位的存款利息可以转账或者现金支付，所计利息应于结息当日入账。

保证金活期帐户的结息入帐帐户是保证金帐户本身。

单位活期存款按日计提，按季自动结息，也可以进行单户临时结息，计息期间遇到利率调整分段计息，每季末二十日为结息日。计算公式为：利息=累计计息积数×日利率。

被冻结的款项，不属于赃款的，冻结期应计付利息，在扣划时利息应付给债权单位，属于赃款的，冻结期间不计付利息。

单位活期存款按月计提，按季自动结息，也可以进行单户临时结息，计息期间遇到利率调整分段计息，每季末二十日为结息日。

单位活期存款是一种随时可以存取、按月计息的存款，其存取主要通过现金或转账办理。

对公现金存款的会计分录为：借1010现金，贷：2010单位活期存款。

涉及到个人的冲账不再填写特殊业务审批单，只要原打印的业务通知书上写明冲账原因、同意冲账及客户签名。但需要上传客户头像和身份证。如果涉及到客户未签字确认的，不用客户签名，但必须有主办会计审批确认（只需要在原凭证上）。

单位账户冲账金额20万（含）-200万由会计主管审批，200万（含）--500万由运管部总经理审批，500万（含）运管线分管行长审批，涉及贷款的由行长或分管行长审批。

除代发工资和10万元以下（不含10万元）小额劳务报酬外，各分支行（部）不得为开户单位办理将单位资金转入储蓄帐户的转帐结算，不得接受以转帐方式进入储蓄帐户的存款。

二十三、人民币单位定期可以全部或部分提前支取，但只能提前支取一次。

单位定期存款证实书是对存款单位开户证实，不能作为质押的权利凭证。

单位定期存款起存金额1万元，可以约定自动转存。

单位人民币通知存款起存金额为10万元人民币。

人民币单位定期可以全部或部分提前支取，但只能提前支取一次，部分提前支取的，其提前支取部分按存入日挂牌公告的活期存款利率计息。

开立的定期零值账户，在未存入钱之前，当日不能销户只能冲账。已有值的定期账户，可以当日销户。

人民币单位定期可以全部或部分提前支取，最多提前支取二次。

人民币单位定期存款按存期分三个月、六个月、一年、二年、三年、五年。人民币单位定期存款起存金额1万元，可以约定自动转存。

财政拨款、预算内资金及银行贷款不得作为单位定期存款存入银行。

人民币通知存款起存金额50万元，一次性存入，可一次或分次支取，最低支取额为5万元，分次支取的，留存部分如低于起存金额的，则予以清户；不低于起存金额的开具新定期存单，从原存款开户日计算存期。

存款单位实际支取其从基本存款账户、专用存款账户、一般存款账户转存的定期存款账户时，可以转账方式将存款转入其基本存款账户或原转存账户，也可以将定期存款账户用于结算或从定期存款账户中提取现金。

人民币通知存款根据存款人取款提前通知的期取长短分为一天通知存款和七天通知存款。

协定存款按月计息，按季结息。

单位协定存款是指开户单位与银行签订《单位协定存款合同》，在基本存款账户或一般存款账户之上开具结算和协定存款双重功能的协定存款账户，并约定基本存款额度，约定期限，由银行将协定存款账户中超过该额度的部分按协定存款利率单独计息的一种存款方式。

办理协定存款须由开户单位与本行签订《协定存款合同》，约定合同期限，最长不超过1年（不含1年），到期时任何一方没有提出终止或修改合同，即视作自动延期。

单位开立协定存款账户，规定基本存款额度，最低不低于1万元。

协定存款合同期满，单位需销户，必须于距合同到期日7天前向我行提出书面销户通知，并于到期日内办理销户手续。

原则上在绍兴银行开立单位结算账户，且开户期限已满一个季度的单位才能申请办理协定存款。

协定存款按日计息，按季结息。

协定存款账户下设结算户（A户）和协定户（B户）两部分，A户存款按结息日挂牌公布的活期存款利率计息，B户存款按结息日挂牌公布的协定存款利率计息。A户和B户清户时，按清户日相应的利率计息。计息期间如遇利率调整，则分段计息。

合同期内，存款单位原则上不得要求销户，如遇特殊情况，须向经办行提交书面销户申请，经办行在收到销户申请后三个工作日内答复。

银承保证金的销户，票据系统会在票据到期日自动备款，这时保证金自动销户。

非银承保证金的销户和提前置换销户的银承保证金，不需要客户经理提供变动通知书。

对于活期类的保证金，也可以作增加或减少存取，通过2406行内转账操作，相应的存取款应就客户经理提供变动通知书作相应的锁定和解锁。

定期保证金可以通过2410定期保证金置款也可以通过2406行内转账置入金额。