在进行收取抵债资产处理交易时，费用金额不能超过抵债资产登记时输入的登记费用金额；还贷金额与费用金额之和应___抵债资产余额。

在抵债资产的收取直至处置期间，银行应妥善保管抵债资产，对抵债资产要建立定期检查、账实核对制度。___应至少组织一次对抵债资产的账实核对，并作好核对记录。

四十七、利息调整柜员需审核信贷部分提供的进行___操作。

利息调整代码为___

利息调整是指用于贷款计息发生错误进行调整时的处理，是对___的利息进行查询及调整。

贷款停息是用于完成贷款在___经审批同意停止计息的处理。

系统计算停息后的利息时，天数从停息日开始算到___止，如需要归还停息后的利息可以通过“3012—利息调整”交易做调增后收取。

贷款停止计息申报审批表的申批日期可以是贷款停息业务操作___

授信划转业务后划转当天如需操作维护、还款等仍由___操作。

授信划转___如需操作维护、还款等仍由老机构操作。

授信划转业务时信贷客户经理提供的绍兴银行资产转移审批表上需由谁签字审批___。

理财产品质押，发售行经过审查认为理财产品合同与留存合同真实一致的，应收取理财产品合同客户留存联正本及产品认购确认单，并在___个工作日内开具理财产品权利凭证。

办理理财产品质押贷款时，作为质物出质的是___。

理财产品权利凭证是由___经过审查认为理财产品合同与留存合同真实一致的，应收取理财产品合同客户留存联正本及产品认购确认单，并在2个工作日内开具的。

现金支票单笔大额付款___万元以上（含）必须严格执行复核制度，换人卡把复点。

下列不属于支票的绝对记载事项的是___。

支票的付款人是___

支票可以通过支票影像交换系统跨区域使用，最高金额不得超过___

持票人向持票人开户银行提交支票要求收款， 应办理 ___

下列哪种票据在任何情况下都不可以背书转让。___

基本户使用现金支票大额取现，应提交有权人审批，对于审批权限说法正确的是___

出票人签发存款不足的空头支票、与预留签章不符或支付密码有误的支票，不以骗取财物为目的的，由中国人民银行处以票面金额___，最高不超过（）元的罚款。

四十七、支票的___可以由出票人授权补记。

出票人签发存款不足的空头支票、与预留签章不符或支付密码错误的支票，出票人开户行应退票并登记___。

浙江省本票提示付款期限自出票日起最长不得超过___，持票人超过付款期限提示付款的，代理付款行不予受理。

签发现金银行本票时，申请人和收款人为___。

签发的本票欠缺哪项记载事项的，代理付款行不予受理___。

出票银行签发银行本票需编制不超过___位密押。

代理付款行拒绝受理银行本票时，应向持票人出具___

依托小额支付系统办理银行本票业务是指___受理持票人提交的银行本票。

目前本票的使用范围为___。

下列关于本票的表述哪个是错误的___

根据《票据法》的规定，下列关于本票的表述中，不正确的是___

本汇票签发时复核柜员在本汇票打印出错，或本汇票和底卡联次没有对齐等时复核柜员需进行___。

签发本票时，结算业务申请书的备注栏内注明“不得转让”的，出票行应当在本票___注明。

本票复核中发现录入有误，可驳回修改的事项是___

___是银行签发的，承诺自己在见票时无条件支付确定的金额给收款人或者持票人的票据。

三十四、三省一市银行汇票的提示付款期限自出票日超___，持票人超过付款期限提示付的，代理付款行不予受理。

三十五、华东三省一市汇票没有金额起点，最高限额为：___

___是银行签发的，由其或代理付款行在见票时按照实际结算金额无条件支付资金给收款人或者持票人的票据。

“机不可失，时不再来”指的是___

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?___