18：金燕e贷，客户当天支用形成的电子合同，若发现期限选择错误，可以当天注销合同。

19：手机银行无卡取款，可以预约550元。

20：客户办理特殊限额业务后，跨行转战时可以突破客户级限额。

21：签约1张记账卡冻结300元，签约第2张记账卡无需再额外冻结。

22：若账户活期余额＜通行费，会扣款失败并将客户列入“黑名单”，系统将连续3天短信提醒客户补足余额并每天批扣一次，若某次扣款成功，则自动解除黑名单状态。

23：若动用了保证金，“黑名单”不会自动解除，客户需前往柜台，柜员做【E0017】ETC记账卡保证金恢复交易，保证金恢复后ETC记账卡状态最长48小时内(含节假日)会自动移除。

24：目前，皮卡车也可以办理ETC。

25：车辆办理ETC实行“一车一卡一标签”，专车专用。即一辆车上只能配备一张中原通卡，一个电子标签使用。

1：1090交易必须基于发生的真实交易流水冲账，由网点主管操作，冲账时无原流水的，不允许使用本交易。

2：1090交易可进行补账的存款账户包括为活期账户和定期账户。

3：6747一记双讫(红蓝字)记账交易用于冲补帐，只适用于内部账。

4：6747一记双讫(红蓝字)可以从会计内部帐直接转入会计内部帐。

5：社保缴费业务，当由于客户原因造成交易错误的，可以由客户发起5344社保缴费撤销交易对之前的交易进行撤销。

6：系统仅支持8899撤销当日的业务。

7：因系统原因，凭证未打印，撤销交易(含中间业务撤销交易)无法提供原始凭证的，手工填制凭证，并提供特殊业务申请省中心授权通过表说明原因。

8：挂失申请书客户联丢失，重新补办挂失手续，无论原挂失申请书是否约定天数，暂统一按7天后处理执行。

9：使用1057交易开立的单位活期保证金账户可以作为结算账户使用，做1058启用后，即可正常办理结算业务。

10：质押控制、差错临控操作时，“是否自动解控”字段应选择“否”，否则到期系统会自动解控账户。

11：6674交易只能由主管来做。

12：大额存单的账户是独立的，但关联账户是资金转入、转出的唯一路径。

13：如果个人客户大额存单签约卡丢失，只需办理卡挂失手续补卡，无需对大额存单办理挂失手续，大额存单账户会在后台自动关联新卡号。

14：347450001这个账户的作用仅用于我们在做汇兑业务时系统进行的资金挂账，这个账户不能手工随便使用。

15：企业或其他机构三证合一后，18位统一社会信用代码中组织机构代码对应的是其中的10-17位。

16：16(含)-18(不含)周岁客户开通电子银行时，应出具其为完全民事行为能力人的相关佐证。

17：在办理单位现金取款业务时，现金支票的用途栏内容可不要求客户填写。

18：【1129协定存款设置】交易只适用于对公客户，不适用于个人客户。

19：若单位账户还未启用，则不能做【1129协定存款设置】交易。

20：【1291法院定时扣划】交易不对账户进行控制。

21：在使用【7122客户印鉴管理】交易对印鉴进行更换时，印鉴更换生效日期可以为当日。

22：在使用【1058单位活期账户启用】交易对账户进行启用时，核准类按照人行账户管理系统打印出开户日期进行修改。

23：单位定期提前支取，授权时需提供单位公函(若提交的授权委托书中写明提前支取单位定期的，则无需再提供公函)。

24：内部账错账冲正交易应该使用1090账户隔日冲补账交易。

25：为客户代发工资时，可不开立5069的代发工资户，直接将各代发单位的资金转入一个账户506950001的账户中。

26：内部账错账冲正交易应该使用6747一记双讫(红蓝字)交易。

27：【1058】单位账户启用交易，一般户启用时必须选择开户原因，选择借款原因的系统默认启用天数为3天。

28：基本存款账户可以通过【1132】交易将账户分类维护为验资户，同时验资户也可通过1132交易维护为其他类账户。

29：在做客户号合并时，因行政区域代码变更造成身份证号码不一致时(仅第3至6位不一致)，无需提交其他任何资料。

30：提交资料中须经市县行社有关部门审批的，应有部门盖章及审批人签名，无需注明职务。

31：同一张特殊业务申请省中心授权通过表中，不可以填写多个交易名称与代码。

32：需审批后办理的业务应按相应级别进行审批，按照要求统一规范填写，一般分为网点负责人、副行长(副主任)、行长(主)。

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___