Fiscal Polarization: The “119%” Public Debt Coincidence and Essential Differences Between China and the United States 財政兩級分化：中美“119%”公債數字巧合與本質差異 —The Emergence of an Economic Paradigm Revolution ——經濟學範式革命應運而生 Archer Hong Qian 經濟學家們只是用不同方式解釋，在社會與國際分工中有沒有“免費的午餐”，並圍繞着多重“兩極分化”及其供需義利矛盾，講述着新老“資本論”的故事；他們不僅讓自己陷入“市場自由與政府管控世紀鐘擺周期性困境”，也讓世界徒生出各種分裂與衝突。然而問題在於，追求高額資本增殖，卻脫離生活常態的生產，已然超出自然、社會、人的身心靈健康可承受極限，那麼，超系統改變，何以可能？ ——摘自錢宏《共生經濟學》（2010） 目錄 引言：119%的巧合 一、制度經濟學視角：債務服務“人民”還是“人民幣/美元”？ 二、價值評估體系：GDP的閾值與生態經濟參量 三、共生經濟學的範式轉變：從增長黃金率到健康黃金率 結語：從數字巧合到文明抉擇 引言：119%的巧合 中美兩國財政公共債務/GDP比率，在2024年碰巧同時達到 119%。有人據此從包括“錢都用到哪兒去了？”等6個方面比較中，提出了一個新問題，我把它叫做：“財政兩級極分化”！可以說，這個財政兩級分化，是“向松祚三個兩級分化”（虛擬經濟和實體經濟兩極分化，真實收入和財富分配兩極分化，信用資源分配兩極分化）的縮影。 是的，“119%”這一表面上的數字巧合，掩蓋了根本性的債務質量差異：美國主要通過債務維繫家庭消費與社會保障，而中國則通過債務推動基建擴張與體制維穩。 由此我們必須提出新的觀察框架：這不再是傳統宏觀經濟學的問題，而是制度、理論、價值與文明邏輯的轉折點。 一、制度經濟學視角：債務服務“人民”還是“人民幣/美元”？ 擴大基建投資與保障家庭消費，在經濟活動全要素上看，已經不能簡單地用“宏觀經濟學”來解釋。無論是自由市場派（哈耶克）還是政府管制派（凱恩斯），都不足以揭示背後的制度經濟學差異。 問題的本質在於： 正如 2024 年三位諾貝爾經濟學獎得主阿西莫格魯（Daron Acemoglu）、約翰遜（Simon Johnson）、羅賓遜（James Robinson）所強調的：制度如何形成並影響經濟繁榮，決定了國家間巨大的差距與不平等。 二、價值評估體系：GDP的閾值與生態經濟參量 擴大基建投資與保障家庭消費，進一步觸及傳統經濟學的核心：國民生產總值（GDP）增長的價值評估體系。 然而，GDP 這一“增值/保值”的指標已逐漸遭遇自身閾值。 參看：《生態經濟參量指標》（《經濟要參》2013年第4期，錢宏等人6篇文章）；錢宏（2019）：《再論新國民“生產—交換—生活”賬戶核算體系——生態文明評價體系須有與之相應的經濟學思維》。 這些研究揭示：單一的 以資本增值/減值為價值參量的GDP 增值率無法衡量生態消耗、社會健康與生活質量。當“增長”本身加重了 生態背負與掏空人民生活質量時，經濟學就必須尋找新的評價體系。 三、共生經濟學的範式轉變：從增長黃金率到健康黃金率 從“降本賦能”的成本/收益關係出發，傳統經濟學強調的“增長黃金率”（Golden Rule of Accumulation），在今天已經不足以應對複雜的社會與生態挑戰。 共生經濟學（Symbionomics）提出了根本性的轉型：從資本論的分配經濟學，走向社會論的共生經濟學。其核心體現為“八大轉變”： 第1個轉變，基於“三大生命自組織力與外連接自平衡力”充要條件，從“理性經濟人假設”的投資－消費社會，到內外開放賦能的“組織共生人假設”——仨自組織人（你、我、他政治自組織人、經濟自組織人、文化自組織人）生態－生產（含人自身生產）－生活恊和互助社會，勢所必然。 第2個轉變，共生經濟學的共生權（the Symbiorights）理論，超越“產權理論”框架下的“公有制”與“私有制”、“政府管制”與“市場自由”的兩難選擇。因而共生權，也超越傳統工程學或倫理學的自由主義經濟學、結構主義經濟學、政治經濟學的努力。 第3個轉變，共生經濟學推動社會進入“熵減-熵旋模式”，其中最重要的是基於“成本收益消長呈反比例”定律和“資源生產率”概念，提出GDE（Gross Domestic Energy）指數評價體系——一套不同於以資本增值/減值為指標的國民生產總值（GDP）統計方法和價值參量，即：以能量（孞息）能效/能耗為指標的國民生產效能（GDE）統計方法和GDE價值參量。那麼，衡量政治經濟組織行為的測量方式，從企業、政府兩張資產（資源）負債表的累計，到自然、社會（道德倫理規范）、家庭、社區、企業、政府六大資產（資源）負債表的綜合。 第4個轉變，從加法減法思維、贖罪上天堂，到乘法除法思維、贖福得共生；從學科化廣義職業教育，到“三本通學教育”－－發現本心（身心靈健康教育）；成就本事（博雅通識覺知教育）；守住本分（全人格教育）,以克服不同“文化屬性”帶來的慣性與惰性。 第5個轉變，從“市場經濟－政府經濟”兩種經濟形態周期性世紀搖擺困局，到“社區經濟－政府經濟－市場經濟”三大經濟形態（Economic form）全生態並行不悖“相互作用、共襄生成”的新格局：a、“有效用邊際”的市場經濟（Market economy資本利潤最大化）；b、“有絕對邊界”的政府經濟（Government economy公共產品最優化）；c、“零邊際成本”的社區經濟（Community economy休養生息最惠化。 第6 個轉變，共生經濟學通過區塊-共生鏈將“仨自組織人”共享交易成果落實在生產、消費、確權全過程的各相關方，從追逐權、錢、性特權奢侈浪費的生活方式，到實行一種人人健康、簡約、高尚、富有尊嚴而可持續健康幸福的自美其美、美人之美、美美與共、共襄生長的普惠生活方式。 第7個轉變，共生經濟學倡導“全球供應鏈、產業鏈、價值鏈三鏈重組的零關稅、零壁壘、零歧視三零規則”新世界貿易秩序，以超越在國際社會事務中任何一家獨大的念想和抱負，徹底跨越所謂“修昔底德陷阱”和各國官粹主義（Elitism）或民粹主義（Populism）操縱，讓“任何統治全世界的帝國政治企圖成為不可能”（康德）。 第8個轉變，從超高國際交易成本、社會交易成本和邊際效益成本的資本（壟斷）-權力（操縱）民族國家，到通訊全開放、資源全自足、運載全覆蓋趨零邊際成本的全球共生社區（地球村）。這意味着化解文明衝突，重建世界秩序，國際社會亟需發起並簽訂《全球共生公約》，促進聯合國改革，成立超主權、超地緣、超文明的“全球共生理事會”。 參看：《從“增長黃金率”到“健康黃金率”芻議——共生經濟學 VS 諾貝爾獎得主費爾普斯》（《經濟要參》2014年第21期）；《共生經濟學：21世紀世界政治經濟組織行為的因應之道》（即將出版）。 結語：從數字巧合到文明抉擇 中美債務的 119%數字巧合，並不意味着兩國處境相同，而是揭示了兩條不同的道路： 這兩條路徑發生關聯（國際自由貿易）時，在“特里芬-羅德里克難題條件下”，會產生一種資本與權力沆瀣一氣又勾心鬥角的“互害機制”，以及路徑依賴式的“結構性失衡”“國際貿易衝突”。 因此，中美債務質量比較問題的關鍵——財政兩級分化，已超越“經濟增長與公共債務比例”的討論範疇（凱恩斯或哈耶克），進入“經濟學範式”轉換（Transform）的新天地。 共生經濟學 的提出，正是要讓經濟走出“為貨幣服務”的舊邏輯，轉向“為生命服務”的新邏輯。 2025年8月31日於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 (共生經濟學，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: 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（共生經濟學） 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.
See also: From the Golden Rule of Growth to the Golden Rule of Health—Symbionomics vs. Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps (Economic Reference, Issue 21, 2014); Symbionomics: The Way Forward for World Political and Economic Organization in the 21st Century (forthcoming).
Conclusion: From Numerical Coincidence to Civilizational Choice The 119% debt coincidence between China and the United States does not mean the two countries are in the same situation; rather, it reveals two fundamentally different paths: One path transforms debt into guarantees for households and communities, forming a positive cycle. The other locks debt into infrastructure and power, generating structural imbalance.
When these two paths intersect (international free trade), under the conditions of the Triffin–Rodrik dilemma, they produce a “mutual harm mechanism” in which capital and power collude while simultaneously contending against each other, as well as path-dependent “structural imbalances” and “international trade conflicts.” Therefore, the key to comparing the debt quality of China and the U.S.—fiscal polarization—has already gone beyond the realm of “economic growth vs public debt ratio” (Keynes or Hayek). It has entered a new realm of economic paradigm transformation. The proposition of Symbionomics（共生經濟學） is precisely to lead economics out of the old logic of “serving money” and toward the new logic of “serving life.” August 31, 2025, Richmond
|
