Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 358

The uncertainties of using debt in a time of crisis

Even before COVID-19, there were few topics as polarising in politics and economics as the size and rectitude of government debt levels around the world. Fighting to avert economic depression and keep the financial system operating in the face of a ‘once in a lifetime’ global financial crisis (GFC), governments ran up towering fiscal deficits that, in most cases, are still with us today. Now, little more than a decade on, instead of being the once-in-a-lifetime event it was touted as, the GFC is looking like a mere entrée to the main Covid-19 borrowing event.

Cheque, please?

According to the IMF, gross government debt will rise by a staggering US$6 trillion in 2020, a greater increase than was seen in any of the years of the GFC. Moreover, it is a rare optimist that thinks 2020 will see the end of this pandemic, or its economic damage.

Figure 1: General gross government debt to GDP – G7 countries and Australia

Source: IMF, Fiscal Monitor – April 2020

The post-GFC debt burdens were highly divisive. In academia, a significant split emerged: Are higher levels of national debt dangerous, or do they represent prudent policy at a time of low interest rates? In 2010, two Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhard and Kenneth Rogoff, published a paper which argued that increased levels of government debt lowered a country’s rate of economic growth. Importantly, their work identified a number of key tipping points, the most alarming being when a country’s public debt to GDP ratio exceeded 90%, its economic growth should be expected to halve. With many countries’ debt levels then precariously close to this level, their analysis became a rallying cry for those that believed in fiscal prudence and austerity.

Embarrassingly, critics later uncovered a series of errors within Reinhard and Rogoff’s analysis. And while subsequent papers by the authors, and independent work by the IMF, also found that rising levels of debt do reduce economic growth rates, the relationship was weaker than previously thought, and there was little evidence to support the 90% debt-to-GDP tipping point. However, by then, the schism within the field of economics was already entrenched.

The most favoured and least painful solution to all debt problems is to grow your way out of them. When viewed in this way, increasing levels of government debt can be thought of like a factory that takes out a loan to expand. So long as the investment increases earnings by more than the interest on the loan, over time, the higher earnings pay back the debt.

What matters less than the size of debt, then, is its cost and whether it will be put to productive use. Across the rich world, government borrowing costs have fallen to almost zero, in some countries they are even negative. Faced with the prospect of ‘free’ money, who wouldn’t want to invest to expand the factory? When considering genuine long-term investment into an economy’s future capacity, this logic is hard to fault. When the Australian government can lock in ten-year debt today at less than 1% per annum, how could there not be a better time to be building the hospitals, airports and roads of the future.

Have cheque book, will spend

Taken to its furthest, the debt is ‘costless’ argument forms the foundation of some of the more extreme economic ideas that have arisen since the GFC, such as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). In essence, the key insight of MMT is that government borrowing is manifestly different from the borrowings of households or businesses. Why? Because if governments can issue their own money, their supply of currency is endless.

If you need to stimulate the economy, or want to embark on some Gosplan-like spending initiative (in the US, some proponents of MMT see it as a way to pay for things like a ‘Green New Deal’), all you need to do is increase the deficit. If interest rates go up in the future, and debt is no longer so cheap, you just borrow to meet those costs too.

In their defence, the more reasoned MMT campaigners do not claim that large government deficits have no consequences at all. Rather, they claim there is significantly more capacity to use government debt than we have historically believed. Japan is typically held up as an example, having successfully managed debt to GDP ratios of >200% for many years. Perhaps undermining this, however, Japanese growth rates have collapsed in tandem with the country’s ever-increasing debt load.

Ideology is like your breath: you never smell your own

The truth is, we still have an incomplete understanding of the long-term consequences of large national debts, and there exists enough intellectual cover for those on both the left and the right to advocate their existing ideological positions. In politics, the media and around the dinner-party table, most people’s views on the virtues of government debt were firmly established before the pandemic struck. What is unfortunate about this is that it is going to make a reasoned debate about the challenges to come almost impossible.

Given all of this, perhaps it is best to acknowledge that, regardless of its impact on growth, increasing levels of debt indisputably escalate overall risk, and tie our hands in the future.

Today, countries that have treated national indebtedness as a scarce resource outside of times of crisis are the ones that find themselves with the greatest capacity to protect their economies. For years, Germany was criticised for pursuing its schwarze Null (black zero) policy—a commitment to run government surpluses. Vindicated today, and uniquely in Europe, Germany has had the ammunition to launch a substantial stimulus plan. Luckily, Australia also finds itself in this camp and has launched the second largest economic stimulus package in the world. Like Germany, it retains plenty of scope to add to this if needed.

We all hope that the ‘second wave’ proves to be manageable and that ultimately a COVID-19 vaccine is found. Hope, however, won’t keep the lights on if this doesn’t prove to be the case.

 

Miles Staude of Staude Capital Limited in London is the Portfolio Manager at the Global Value Fund (ASX:GVF). This article is the opinion of the writer and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

What should you look for when investing in private debt?

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

Seven key charts on the global economy and investments

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Raising the GST to 15%

Treasurer Jim Chalmers aims to tackle tax reform but faces challenges. Previous reviews struggled due to political sensitivities, highlighting the need for comprehensive and politically feasible change.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

9 winning investment strategies

There are many ways to invest in stocks, but some strategies are more effective than others. Here are nine tried and tested investment approaches - choosing one of these can improve your chances of reaching your financial goals.

Planning

Super, death and taxes – time to rethink your estate plans?

The $3 million super tax has many rethinking their super strategies, especially issues of wealth transfer on death. This reviews the taxes on super benefits and offers investment alternatives.

Taxation

Raising the GST to 15%

Treasurer Jim Chalmers aims to tackle tax reform but faces challenges. Previous reviews struggled due to political sensitivities, highlighting the need for comprehensive and politically feasible change.

Shares

The megatrend you simply cannot ignore

Markets are reassessing the impact of AI, with initial euphoria giving way to growing scepticism. This shift is evident in the performance of ASX-listed AI beneficiaries, creating potential opportunities.

Gold

Is this the real reason for gold's surge past $3,000?

Concerns over the US fiscal position seem to have overtaken geopolitics and interest rates as the biggest tailwind for gold prices. Even if a debt crisis doesn't seem likely, there could be more support on the way.

Exchange traded products

Is now the time to invest in small caps?

With further RBA rate cuts forecast this year, small caps may be key beneficiaries. There are quality small cap LICs and LITs trading at discounts to net assets, offering opportunities for astute investors.

Strategy

Welcome to the grey war

Forget speculation about a future US-China conflict - it's already happening. Through cyberwarfare and propaganda, China is waging a grey war designed to weaken democracies without firing a single shot.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.