定期储蓄账户可分为___

以下哪些账户属于个人储蓄账户：___

个人账户按储蓄种类可分为___。

以下哪些账户只能开立储蓄账户，不能开立结算账户___。

以下说法正确的是___

个人活期账户销户注意事项正确的是___

关于个人账户管理的说法正确的有___

保证金账户系空开账户，存值可以通过___值。

下列关于活期账户的说法正确的有___。

关于二类账户___下列哪些交易不受限制

若本人未满16周岁，须由监护人代为办理，需提供监护人的身份证，本人身份证或户口簿，以及证明监护人关系的户口簿。如果户口簿无法证明监护人关系，需额外提供能证明监护人关系的证明，如___

下列哪些信息可以在柜面进行信息维护的？___

无折（卡）续存，则存款人需提供哪些资料___。

下列哪些交易必须刷卡才能进行交易___。

我行现有业务币种有哪些___。

2105维护类型可以有哪些___

活期存取款选择凭证类型，可以选择___

个人活期存款支取方式有___

当活期账户存在下列情况时，___，不可销户

在做2003个人现金存款时选择凭证类型，可以选择___

存款时是否代理可选择是/否，若有代理，需输入___输入身份信息后可进行核查。

账户存在属性异常现象主要包括___

以下业务中需要授权中心授权的有___。

以下说法正确的是___

我行活期储蓄存款按积数计息：就是按实际天数每日累计账户余额，以累计积数乘以日利率计算利息的方法。积数计息法的计息公式为：利息=累计计息积数×日利率，日利率（‰）计算公式为：___。

账户存在属性异常，比如活期账户有___关系时，不可销户。

建立约定转存时活期帐户下限与自动转存基数可以是___。

以下说法正确的是___

金融IC卡借记账户和金融IC卡电子现金账户挂失情况___

下列选项属于电子现金账户性质的是___

以下关于金融IC卡说法错误的有___

下列属于Ⅱ类户存入、转取限额控制的是___。

市民卡的实物卡分为哪几种___

单位新增人员的批量申领仅限于绍兴市参加社会保险的各用人单位、学校（幼儿园），新增人员是指未申领过绍兴市社会保障卡的人员。单位经办人员需在社保经办机构办理好社保参保手续；单位授权办理人登录社会保障市民卡公司网站(www.sxssmk.com)下载批量申领所需要的各类资料，或到我行服务网点领取，按要求填写，并收集有效证件复印件，审核资料。其中所需资料为___

个人申领社会保障市民卡申领对象：具有绍兴市户籍的本市市民和在绍兴市行政区域内参加社会保险的非本市户籍人员。其中所需资料为___

绍兴市社会保障市民卡是指由绍兴市人力资源和社会保障局发放的，具有___等基本功能

市民卡的主要功能：___

个人申领社会保障市民卡的申领对象是___

社会保障市民卡交易密码有3个，分别为___

市民卡挂失中，社保账户和联机账户分为___。

“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?___