财政两级分化：中美“119%”公债数字巧合与本质差异

发表时间：2025-09-02 02:06

Fiscal Polarization: The “119%” Public Debt Coincidence and Essential Differences Between China and the United States

—The Emergence of an Economic Paradigm Revolution

——经济学范式革命应运而生

Archer Hong Qian

经济学家们只是用不同方式解释，在社会与国际分工中有没有“免费的午餐”，并围绕着多重“两极分化”及其供需义利矛盾，讲述着新老“资本论”的故事；他们不仅让自己陷入“市场自由与政府管控世纪钟摆周期性困境”，也让世界徒生出各种分裂与冲突。然而问题在于，追求高额资本增殖，却脱离生活常態的生产，已然超出自然、社会、人的身心灵健康可承受极限，那么，超系统改变，何以可能？

——摘自钱宏《共生经济学》（2010）

引言：119%的巧合

一、制度经济学视角：债务服务“人民”还是“人民币/美元”？

二、价值评估体系：GDP的阈值与生态经济参量

三、共生经济学的范式转变：从增长黄金率到健康黄金率

结语：从数字巧合到文明抉择

引言：119%的巧合

中美两国财政公共债务/GDP比率，在2024年碰巧同时达到 119%。有人据此从包括“钱都用到哪儿去了？”等6个方面比较中，提出了一个新问题，我把它叫做：“财政两级极分化”！可以说，这个财政两级分化，是“向松祚三个两级分化”（虚拟经济和实体经济两极分化，真实收入和财富分配两极分化，信用资源分配两极分化）的缩影。

是的，“119%”这一表面上的数字巧合，掩盖了根本性的债务质量差异：美国主要通过债务维系家庭消费与社会保障，而中国则通过债务推动基建扩张与体制维稳。

由此我们必须提出新的观察框架：这不再是传统宏观经济学的问题，而是制度、理论、价值与文明逻辑的转折点。

一、制度经济学视角：债务服务“人民”还是“人民币/美元”？

扩大基建投资与保障家庭消费，在经济活动全要素上看，已经不能简单地用“宏观经济学”来解释。无论是自由市场派（哈耶克）还是政府管制派（凯恩斯），都不足以揭示背后的制度经济学差异。

问题的本质在于：

美国债务逻辑是“社会经济”，偏向于家庭与社区，体现“经济增长为人民服务”；
中国债务逻辑则是“权力经济”“举国经济”（“身份（佃户）经济”或“低端（人口）经济”，可追溯到秦汉“刑徒经济”），偏向于资本（增值）与权力（创租、抽租、寻租），即“经济增长为人民币（含外汇）服务”。

正如 2024 年三位诺贝尔经济学奖得主阿西莫格鲁（Daron Acemoglu）、约翰逊（Simon Johnson）、罗宾逊（James Robinson）所强调的：制度如何形成并影响经济繁荣，决定了国家间巨大的差距与不平等。

二、价值评估体系：GDP的阈值与生态经济参量

扩大基建投资与保障家庭消费，进一步触及传统经济学的核心：国民生产总值（GDP）增长的价值评估体系。

然而，GDP 这一“增值/保值”的指标已逐渐遭遇自身阈值。

参看：《生态经济参量指标》（《经济要参》2013年第4期，钱宏等人6篇文章）；钱宏（2019）：《再论新国民“生产—交换—生活”账户核算体系——生态文明评价体系须有与之相应的经济学思维》。

这些研究揭示：单一的以资本增值/减值为价值参量的GDP 增值率无法衡量生态消耗、社会健康与生活质量。当“增长”本身加重了生态背负与掏空人民生活质量时，经济学就必须寻找新的评价体系。

三、共生经济学的范式转变：从增长黄金率到健康黄金率

从“降本赋能”的成本/收益关系出发，传统经济学强调的“增长黄金率”（Golden Rule of Accumulation），在今天已经不足以应对复杂的社会与生态挑战。

共生经济学（Symbionomics）提出了根本性的转型：从资本论的分配经济学，走向社会论的共生经济学。其核心体现为“八大转变”：

第1个转变，基于“三大生命自组织力与外连接自平衡力”充要条件，从“理性经济人假设”的投资－消费社会，到内外开放赋能的“组织共生人假设”——仨自组织人（你、我、他政治自组织人、经济自组织人、文化自组织人）生态－生产（含人自身生产）－生活恊和互助社会，势所必然。

第2个转变，共生经济学的共生权（the Symbiorights）理论，超越“产权理论”框架下的“公有制”与“私有制”、“政府管制”与“市场自由”的两难选择。因而共生权，也超越传统工程学或伦理学的自由主义经济学、结构主义经济学、政治经济学的努力。

第3个转变，共生经济学推动社会进入“熵减-熵旋模式”，其中最重要的是基于“成本收益消长呈反比例”定律和“资源生产率”概念，提出GDE（Gross Domestic Energy）指数评价体系——一套不同于以资本增值/减值为指标的国民生产总值（GDP）统计方法和价值参量，即：以能量（孞息）能效/能耗为指标的国民生产效能（GDE）统计方法和GDE价值参量。那么，衡量政治经济组织行为的测量方式，从企业、政府两张资产（资源）负债表的累计，到自然、社会（道德伦理規范）、家庭、社区、企业、政府六大资产（资源）负债表的综合。

第4个转变，从加法减法思维、赎罪上天堂，到乘法除法思维、赎福得共生；从学科化广义职业教育，到“三本通学教育”－－发现本心（身心灵健康教育）；成就本事（博雅通识觉知教育）；守住本分（全人格教育）,以克服不同“文化属性”带来的惯性与惰性。

第5个转变，从“市场经济－政府经济”两种经济形态周期性世纪摇摆困局，到“社区经济－政府经济－市场经济”三大经济形态（Economic form）全生态并行不悖“相互作用、共襄生成”的新格局：a、“有效用边际”的市场经济（Market economy资本利润最大化）；b、“有绝对边界”的政府经济（Government economy公共产品最优化）；c、“零边际成本”的社区经济（Community economy休养生息最惠化。

第6 个转变，共生经济学通过区块-共生链将“仨自组织人”共享交易成果落实在生产、消费、确权全过程的各相关方，从追逐权、钱、性特权奢侈浪费的生活方式，到实行一种人人健康、简约、高尚、富有尊严而可持续健康幸福的自美其美、美人之美、美美与共、共襄生长的普惠生活方式。

第7个转变，共生经济学倡导“全球供应链、产业链、价值链三链重组的零关税、零壁垒、零歧视三零规则”新世界贸易秩序，以超越在国际社会事务中任何一家独大的念想和抱负，彻底跨越所谓“修昔底德陷阱”和各国官粹主义（Elitism）或民粹主义（Populism）操纵，让“任何统治全世界的帝国政治企图成为不可能”（康德）。

第8个转变，从超高国际交易成本、社会交易成本和边际效益成本的资本（垄断）-权力（操纵）民族国家，到通讯全开放、资源全自足、运载全覆盖趋零边际成本的全球共生社区（地球村）。这意味着化解文明冲突，重建世界秩序，国际社会亟需发起并签订《全球共生公约》，促进联合国改革，成立超主权、超地缘、超文明的“全球共生理事会”。

参看：《从“增长黄金率”到“健康黄金率”刍议——共生经济学 VS 诺贝尔奖得主费尔普斯》（《经济要参》2014年第21期）；《共生经济学：21世纪世界政治经济组织行为的因应之道》（即将出版）。

结语：从数字巧合到文明抉择

中美债务的 119%数字巧合，并不意味着两国处境相同，而是揭示了两条不同的道路：

一条道路，把债务转化为家庭与社区的保障，形成正向循环；
另一条道路，把债务锁定在基建与权力，形成结构性失衡。

这两条路径发生关联（国际自由贸易）时，在“特里芬-罗德里克难题条件下”，会产生一种资本与权力沆瀣一气又勾心斗角的“互害机制”，以及路径依赖式的“结构性失衡”“国际贸易冲突”。

因此，中美债务质量比较问题的关键——财政两级分化，已超越“经济增长与公共债务比例”的讨论范畴（凯恩斯或哈耶克），进入“经济学范式”转换（Transform）的新天地。

共生经济学的提出，正是要让经济走出“为货币服务”的旧逻辑，转向“为生命服务”的新逻辑。

2025年8月31日于Richmond

Fiscal Polarization: The “119%” Public Debt Coincidence and Essential Differences Between China and the United States

—The Emergence of an Economic Paradigm Revolution

Archer Hong Qian

Economists merely use different ways to explain whether there is a “free lunch” in the social and international division of labor, and, revolving around multiple “polarizations” and the conflicts of supply, demand, interests, and benefits, they continue retelling the old and new stories of Capital. In doing so, they trap themselves in the “century-long pendulum dilemma between market freedom and government control,” while simultaneously giving rise to divisions and conflicts across the world. The core problem is this: the pursuit of high capital accumulation, divorced from the normal rhythms of life-production, has already surpassed the limits bearable by nature, society, and the physical, mental, and spiritual health of human beings. Then how is a super-systemic transformation possible?

—Excerpt from Symbionomics (共生经济学，2010)

Introduction: The Coincidence of 119%

In 2024, the public debt-to-GDP ratio of both China and the United States coincidentally reached 119%. Based on comparisons in six dimensions—including the question, “Where did all the money go?”—a new issue was raised, which I call “Fiscal Polarization.” One can say this fiscal polarization is a microcosm of Xiang Songzuo’s “three major polarizations” (polarization between the virtual and real economy, polarization in real income and wealth distribution, and polarization in credit resource allocation).

Indeed, the surface-level numerical coincidence of “119%” conceals a fundamental difference in debt quality:

The United States primarily uses debt to sustain household consumption and social security.
China primarily uses debt to drive infrastructure expansion and systemic stability.

This compels us to propose a new analytical framework: this is no longer a matter of traditional macroeconomics, but a turning point in institutions, theory, values, and civilizational logic.

I.Institutional Economics Perspective: Does Debt Serve the People or the Renminbi/USD?

The expansion of infrastructure investment versus the safeguarding of household consumption can no longer be explained simply by “macroeconomics.” Neither the free-market school (Hayek) nor the government-regulation school (Keynes) is sufficient to uncover the institutional economic differences behind them.

The essence of the problem lies in:

United States: The debt logic is socio-economic, leaning toward households and communities, reflecting “economic growth serving the people.”
China: The debt logic is a power economy or national-mobilization economy (“tenant economy” or “low-end population economy,” traceable back to the “penal labor economy” of the Qin and Han dynasties), leaning toward capital (appreciation) and power (rent-creation, rent-extraction, rent-seeking), i.e., “economic growth serving the Renminbi (including foreign exchange).”

As emphasized by the three Nobel laureates in economics in 2024—Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson—the way institutions are formed and how they influence economic prosperity determine the vast differences and inequalities among nations.

II.Value Assessment Systems: The Threshold of GDP and Ecological Economic Parameters

The expansion of infrastructure investment and household consumption further touches the core of traditional economics: the value assessment system of GDP growth.

However, GDP, as an index of “value-added/preservation,” has gradually reached its threshold.

See:

Indicators of Ecological Economic Parameters (Economic Reference, Issue 4, 2013, six articles by Qian Hong et al.);
Qian Hong (2019): Revisiting the New National “Production–Exchange–Life” Accounts System—The Evaluation System of Ecological Civilization Must Be Matched by Economic Thinking.

These studies reveal: a GDP growth rate based solely on capital appreciation/depreciation cannot measure ecological consumption, social health, and quality of life. When “growth” itself intensifies ecological burdens and hollows out people’s quality of life, economics must seek a new evaluation system.

III. The Paradigm Shift of Symbionomics: From the Golden Rule of Growth to the Golden Rule of Health

Starting from the cost/benefit logic of “cost reduction and empowerment,” traditional economics emphasizes the Golden Rule of Accumulation. Today, however, it is no longer sufficient to address complex social and ecological challenges.

Symbionomics（共生经济学） proposes a fundamental transformation:From the distribution economics of Capital to the symbiotic economics of Society.

Its core is embodied in Eight Transformations:

From the “rational economic man” to the “symbiotic organizing man.” Based on the sufficient and necessary conditions of the “three self-organizing forces of life and external balancing forces,” society must transition from an investment–consumption model to an internally and externally empowered cooperative society of ecology–production (including human self-production)–life, embodied in the Triple Self-Organizing Man (political, economic, cultural).
From property rights to Symbiorights. Symbionomics proposes the theory of Symbiorights, transcending the binary dilemma between “public vs private ownership” and “government regulation vs market freedom.” It also surpasses the attempts of liberal, structuralist, and political economics.
From GDP to GDE. Symbionomics advances an “entropy-reduction/entropy-rotation model,” grounded in the law of “inverse proportion of cost and benefit” and the concept of “resource productivity.” It introduces the GDE (Gross Domestic Energy) index—an alternative to GDP—measuring national production efficiency by energy (mind-breath) efficiency/consumption. Evaluation thus shifts from the two balance sheets of enterprises and governments to the six balance sheets of nature, society (moral/ethical norms), family, community, enterprise, and government.
From additive/subtractive thinking to multiplicative/divisive thinking. From “atonement for heaven” to “redemption for symbiosis”; from disciplinary vocational education to “Threefold Universal Education”: discovering the true self (body–mind–spirit health education), achieving capability (liberal general knowledge education), and preserving integrity (whole-person education), thereby overcoming the inertia of differing “cultural attributes.”
From the pendulum of market economy vs government economy to a triadic structure. Symbionomics envisions the coexistence of three economic forms:
a. Market economy of “marginal utility” (profit maximization).
b. Government economy of “absolute boundaries” (public goods optimization).
c. Community economy of “zero marginal cost” (well-being maximization through recuperation).
From privilege-driven lifestyles to symbiotic lifestyles. Through blockchain-based symbiosis chains, Symbionomics anchors the outcomes of the “Triple Self-Organizing Man” across production, consumption, and rights confirmation—shifting from privilege-obsessed extravagance to a universally accessible lifestyle that is healthy, simple, noble, dignified, and sustainably flourishing.
From hegemonic trade to the Triple Zero Rule. Symbionomics advocates a new world trade order of “zero tariffs, zero barriers, zero discrimination,” transcending hegemonic ambitions, avoiding the “Thucydides Trap,” and countering elitist or populist manipulation—thereby making “any empire’s attempt to rule the world impossible” (Kant).
From nation-state monopolism to a global symbiotic community. Symbionomics envisions a transition from capital-power-driven nation-states, with ultra-high transaction costs, to a global village characterized by open communication, self-sufficient resources, and near-zero marginal transportation costs. This requires initiating and signing a Global Symbiosism Convention, reforming the United Nations, and establishing a “Global Symbiosis Council” beyond sovereignty, geopolitics, and civilizations.