15：电子银行中的渠道限额(认证方式限额)，客户可以自主改动，但只可调低。

16：自助设备刷脸取款时，系统会把客户脸部信息存储到后台，并和你的账户直接关联。

17：自助设备刷脸取款时，不用输入账户取款密码即可取款。

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。

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?___

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?___