被贷方冻结的存款账户可以对外付款。 ___

书面挂失时选择不止付的，该账户仍可在ATM等渠道办理不需存款凭证的付款业务。 ___

联系查证仅作为确定存款人真实支付行为的辅助手段，不能作为确定支付款项的条件。 ___

个人在银行柜面开立的Ⅱ、Ⅲ类户，无需绑定Ⅰ类户或者信用卡账户进行身份验证。 ___

个人储蓄账户仅限于办理现金存取业务，不得办理转账结算。 ___

客户使用Ⅲ类户发放贷款和归还贷款资金，不受转账限额规定，但应当遵守Ⅲ类户余额限制规定。 ___

个人可通过电子渠道为办理Ⅱ、Ⅲ类户销户业务。 ___

单位银行结算账户的存款人可以开立多个基本存款账户。 ___

企业在取消账户许可前已开立的基本存款账户、临时存款账户的变更和撤销业务实行核准制。 ___

建筑施工及安装单位企业在异地同时承建多个项目的，可根据建筑施工及安装合同开立不超过项目合同个数的临时存款账户。 ___

企业存款人基本存款账户编号代替原基本存款账户核准号使用。 ___

单位存款人申请开立单位银行结算账户时，可由法定代表人或单位负责人直接办理，也可授权他人办理。 ___

营业机构应双人审核单位存款人的开户申请书填写的事项和证明文件的真实性、完整性、合规性，开户申请人与身份证明文件所属人的一致性，以及开户意愿的真实性。 ___

企业开立基本存款账户或临时存款账户的，应在3个工作日内通过开户信息管理系统 向当地人民银行分支机构报送开户资料。 ___

在本法人机构外有其他久悬银行结算账户的单位存款人，营业机构可以再为其进行开户处理。 ___

经县级以上人民政府宗教事务部门批准设立，并取得人民政府宗教事务部门颁发的宗教活动场所登记证的宗教活动场所，可申请开立单位银行结算账户 ___

支付机构应当在备付金存管银行开立至少一个自有资金账户。 ___

支付机构的备付金专用存款账户应当与自有资金账户分户管理，可以办理现金支取或转账支取。 ___

基本存款账户是单位存款人的主办账户。 ___

存款人日常经营活动的资金收付及其工资、奖金和现金的支取，应通过一般存款账户办理。 ___

临时存款账户的有效期最长不得超过2年（含展期）。 ___

企业存款人开立的银行结算账户，自开立之日次日起办理收付款业务。 ___

银行结算账户存续期间，开户行应当对单位存款人开户资格和实名制符合性进行动态复核，并根据复核情况作相应处理。 ___

开户行应当建立企业账务核对机制，对账频率应不低于一个月一次。 ___

企业遗失或损毁取消许可前基本存款账户开户许可证的，应向人民银行分支机构申请补发。 ___

因变更取消许可前基本存款账户、临时存款账户而收回的原开户许可证原件或相关说明，开户行应当交回人民银行当地分支机构。 ___

企业变更取消许可前开立的基本存款账户、临时存款账户名称、法定代表人或单位负责人等信息的，开户行应当收回原开户许可证原件。 ___

企业遗失原开户许可证的，应登报挂失。 ___

对企业名称、法定代表人或者单位负责人等变更的，账户管理系统重新生成基本存款账户编号，开户行应当打印《基本存款账户信息》并交付企业。 ___

营业机构发现企业名称、法定代表人或单位负责人发生变更的，应当及时通知企业办理变更手续。 ___

企业营业执照、法定代表人或单位负责人有效身份证件列明有效期的，营业机构应当于到期日前提示企业及时更新。 ___

单位存款人申请撤销银行结算账户的，应先撤销一般存款账户、专用存款账户、临时存款账户，将账户资金转入基本存款账户后，方可办理基本存款账户的撤销。 ___

单位存款人尚未清偿其农商行债务的，可以申请撤销其银行结算账户。 ___

个人活期存款分为个人活期储蓄存款、个人结算存款和定活两便储蓄存款。 ___

个人活期储蓄存折账户及个人银行结算账户实行按季结息的方式，采用积数计息法。 ___

存款人申请提前支取整存整取储蓄存款的，可部分提前支取多次。 ___

整存整取储蓄存款在到期日当天及逾期以后不允许部分支取。 ___

整存整取储蓄存款的到期日以到期月的对日为到期日，无对日的月末日为到期日。 ___

零存整取储蓄存款存款人每次存入金额必须是开户金额的整数倍。 ___

存款人申请提前支取教育储蓄存款的，可部分提前支取。 ___

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___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___