这个道理很简单，如果缺少预期，诸如发券、补贴这类引"钱"出洞的手段去刺激消费，肯定不会实现李稻葵所说的四倍乘数效应。 李院长的四倍乘数是选择性的数据，源于疫情期间在上海的测试，而不是东北鹤岗的市场生态，不能太当真。经济分析一定要有数据的支持，但分析的底层 逻辑不是数据，我们谈预期，谈的是平衡，如果在系统关系中有太多的不平衡，就不可能出现李院长的四倍乘数效应。 现在谈消费，已经不谈怎么刺激了，开始谈预期。 房贷在中国家庭债务的占比太高了，按黄奇帆的数据，中国居民杠杆率从 2008 年的 18% 快速攀升，很多城市家庭负债率已达 60% - 70% ，主要就源于房地 产。如果房地产行业持续低迷，房产市值低于贷款余额，就成了"负资产"，这还怎么刺激消费？ 那么，究竟怎么提振消费，从学理上说是非常简单的一件事，消费是收入的函数，如果缺少就业与收入的预期，老百姓根本不打算买车，补贴就成了多余的 利好。 那么 ，2026年能给居民带来什么预期？ 政策的方向感很清楚，要提高居民的收入，提高全民共享的社会保障体系，剩下的问题就要看力度，2025年农民基础养老金提高了20元，这不叫预期，希望 今年的力度会大一些，要货真价实地提 ...

居民资产负债表，居民杠杆率 2024年第一季度以来，我国居民部门杠杆率开始缓慢下行，显示我国居民部门正逐步进行资产负债表修 复。 降低居民部门杠杆率主要有四种路径：通过债务减记降低负债端，或通过股票上涨、房产增值和收入增 长做大资产端。这四种路径的组合形成了三种降杠杆的模式：一是美国次贷危机后的模式，初期通过快 速的债务减记和股价上涨降低居民杠杆，而后收入回升和房价企稳促使居民资产负债表进一步修复。二 是美国公共卫生事件后的模式，彼时居民负债水平健康，财政与货币相互配合的超常规宽松促使股价和 居民收入上涨，起到降低杠杆率的作用。三是日本双重泡沫破灭后的模式，初期日本政府未及时处置不 良债务问题，居民负债居高不下，拖累了居民杠杆修复。亚洲金融海啸后日本开始推动不良债务出清， 但收入上涨未能弥补房价下跌的损失，居民杠杆迟迟没有下降；小泉上台后债务减记使杠杆率下降，但 收入增长缓慢；后期安倍"三支箭"使股价与收入上涨，带动房价企稳回升。 国际经验显示：一是在降杠杆的启动期，不良债务的处置具有重要作用。美国政府在次贷危机爆发后快 速地实施不良债务处置措施，通过购买不良资产以核销坏账，并对居民房贷进行重组，加速了居民资 ...

Core Insights - The article discusses the historical context and implications of leverage in the U.S. and China, highlighting the differences in their economic strategies and outcomes during financial crises and recovery periods. Group 1: U.S. Leverage Dynamics - In 2008, U.S. household leverage reached a historical peak of 99.8%, signaling the onset of the financial crisis, driven by policy shifts following the dot-com bubble burst [1] - The Federal Reserve initiated a rate-cutting cycle starting in 2000, reducing the federal funds rate from 6.5% to 1% by 2003, which, along with relaxed credit standards, fueled a housing market boom [2] - Post-2008, the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing (QE) involved purchasing over $1.7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and more than $2.5 trillion in government bonds, effectively transferring leverage from households and businesses to the government [7] Group 2: Comparison with China - From 2012 to 2023, China's household leverage increased from 20% to 62% in just 11 years, contrasting with the U.S. which took 40 years to achieve a similar increase [5] - China's leverage strategy post-2015 focused on increasing household debt to stimulate domestic demand, with policies like lowering down payments and interest rates [8][10] - By 2023, China's household leverage reached 62%, while U.S. household leverage stabilized around 75%, indicating different economic foundations and debt burdens [10] Group 3: Current Leverage Trends - As of 2024, U.S. government leverage is projected to exceed 120%, relying on dollar hegemony and asset appreciation to manage debt [13] - In contrast, China's leverage structure shows high corporate leverage at 151.3%, with government leverage at 44.7% and household leverage at 62%, indicating a need for balance in managing risks [16] - The article warns of potential risks in China's reliance on government bonds for social financing, suggesting that if government leverage does not stimulate private investment, it could lead to inefficiencies [16] Group 4: Future Implications for China - The core of China's future leverage management should focus on controlling household leverage, enhancing the business environment, and restructuring local government debt to improve efficiency [18] - Achieving a balance between leverage and economic fundamentals is crucial for China's long-term economic transformation and potential [18]