Connect with us

Economics

Government shutdowns usually have little economic impact. This time could be different

Published

on

A view of the U.S. Capitol on September 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

For all the political firestorms they generate, government shutdowns historically have been nonevents for both markets and the economy.

This time, though, could be different.

That’s because President Donald Trump’s threat to make some federal government furloughs resulting from the shutdown permanent could have longer-lasting impacts on an employment picture that already has been looking precarious.

Should Trump follow through on the threat — and successfully weather what almost certainly would be yet another court challenge to his executive authority — it throws a wrench into what otherwise have been much more political than economic events.

“We have reason to think that a shutdown this time may not follow past precedent,” Michael McLean, public policy senior analyst at Barclays, said in a client note. If Trump follows through, “this would be a significant departure from past practice and could inject new uncertainty into the economic effect of a shutdown, which otherwise we would expect to be marginal.”

Indeed, shutdowns in the past have left little mark other than the political damage done to the party perceived as at fault.

Markets have sold off on occasion but then quickly recovered. For growth, most economists calculate the impact as about 0.1 percentage point off gross domestic product for week. Being that the longest closure lasted 35 days, from-late 2018 until the following January, that’s not a lot for a $30 trillion economy. The short-term losses are usually easily recouped in subsequent quarters, according to Bank of America.

Labor market trouble

However, in this case the labor market already has been wobbly. In particular, the Washington, D.C. region, where a large share of federal government employees call home, has taken a hit from the layoffs earlier this year advocated by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency advisory board.

Shutdowns automatically mean that employees not deemed essential are furloughed, but are always summoned back once the impasse ends. Trump threatened, in an NBC News interview Sunday, that “we are going to cut a lot of the people that … we’re able to cut on a permanent basis.”

The impact on the monthly nonfarm payrolls report wouldn’t show up until the October count is released in November, where Trump’s threat “could have a more severe near-term impact” than usual, wrote Nomura economist David Seif.

But that brings up another wrinkle: Should the shutdown last any significant amount of time, it could delay the release of key economic data.

Impact on the BLS

The Labor Department said Friday it will shut down virtually all activity. The department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, which releases multiple key economic reports including the monthly jobs count, would be shuttered as long as the shutdown lasts. In an action plan to address the situation, the department warned of delays and also said a “reduction in quality” for the data could occur.

For Social Security recipients, a delay in the release of the consumer price index inflation reading could impact cost-of-living adjustments.

The situation also could impact the Federal Reserve, which relies on BLS data when making its decisions on interest rates and other matters relating to monetary policy.

“While the US government may be headed for a shutdown, we expect little economic impact,” Mark Cabana, head of rates strategy at Bank of America, said in a note. “A shutdown would pause economic data releases, leaving the Fed reliant on private data for its policy decisions if the shutdown extends.”

One corollary would be the 2013 shutdown, when the September jobs report was delayed until Oct. 22. That month’s CPI also was postponed by two weeks.

Elizabeth Renter, senior economist at NerdWallet, concurred with most Wall Street analyses in that the ultimate impact should be “relatively mild.” However, she noted the potential hit to the labor market.

“The most immediate and impactful effect is on furloughed federal employees and contractors,” she said. “When households are forced to go without income, even for a week, it can set back their financial stability significantly.”

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending