Government Shutdown Ends — But the Damage Doesn’t

Ed Elson sits down with Ramit Sethi, host of the “Money For Couples” podcast to unpack the Trump administration’s proposed 50-year mortgage. Then, Dylan Carden, Senior Analyst at William Blair, joins the show to break down On Running’s earnings and whether the company poses a threat to Nike. Finally, Ed speaks with Robert Sockin, Senior Global Economist at Citi to explain what the end to the government shutdown really means for the economy. Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Follow Scott on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  From the Goldman Sachs trading floor in 10 minutes or less, investors and analysts share timely analysis on the week's market activity. The markets podcast from Goldman Sachs. Listen now.

• 0:15Speaker 01

  Your heart can tell you a lot about your health. Apple Watch Series 12 measures your heart rate every five seconds with the most accurate heart rate sensing in a wearable. So your vitals app now with heart rate variability can tell you when something is off and your readiness score can let you know when to rest and when to push. Hear the story in every heartbeat with Apple Watch Series 12. The futures described are for wellness purposes only and not for medical use. iPhone 11 or later required. Based on Apple conducted study of heart rate accuracy, August 2026. Visit apple.com slash Apple Watch Series 12.

• 0:46Speaker 02

  If you're looking to hire, you need Indeed. With Indeed sponsored jobs, you can spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help your job get the premium status it deserves at indeed.com/podcast. Just go to indeed.com/podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 1:30Ed Elson?

  Today's number six. That's how many days old Mary Stuart was when she became Queen of Scotland. That makes her one of the least qualified leaders in history, just behind Linda McMahon.

• 1:47Speaker 04

  Money markets, Matt. If money is evil, then that building is hell.

• 1:57Ed Elson?

  Welcome to Profy Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is November 13th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The Dow hit another record ahead of the shutdown vote in the House. The S and P 500 was flat and the Nasdaq declined. Meanwhile, the yield on 10-year Treasuries fell. Bitcoin dropped towards the key $100,000 range and finally, gold climbed.

• 2:21Ed Elson?

  Okay, what else is happening? The Trump administration has proposed a new idea to tackle home affordability, the 50-year mortgage loan. Right now, most first-time home buyers take out a 30-year mortgage. According to administration officials, a 50-year mortgage would lower monthly payments, helping new buyers enter the market. However, many housing experts say that the monthly savings on those payments would be small and homeowners would wind up paying actually a lot more in interest. So we wanted to break down the economics of this 50-year mortgage proposal. So we're speaking with Ramit Sethi, host of the Money for Couples podcast and bestselling author of I Will Teach You to Be Rich. Ramit, thanks for joining us again on Profitey Markets.

• 3:06Speaker 05

  Thanks, Ed.

• 3:07Ed Elson?

  We want to get your reactions to the 50-year mortgage. I know you have a lot of takes and a lot of opinions that are very polarizing on homeownership. I see this headline, Trump wants to have 50-year mortgages, or at least that's being floated. I just, I gotta get your take on this. What do you think?

• 3:24Speaker 05

  Well, what do you say to pathetic politicians who simply want to, at any cost, keep the price of housing going up? What do you say to a government that essentially says to people, hey, if you can't afford a $450,000 Rolls Royce, how about we spread those payments out over 50 years? And how do you reconcile that with a public that has the number one religion in this country being homeownership, who many people jump and say, wait, lower payments? Sounds good to me. We have a very bad policy here, very bad recipe for the average American consumer. It's one of the worst policies I've heard in recent years, and that's really saying a lot.

• 4:06Ed Elson?

  Break down what the, what the, the grift kind of is here, because you described, it is lower payments, but spread out over a long time. Why exactly is that bad?

• 4:18Speaker 05

  The concept of interest is a word that many people generally understand, but they rarely understand the specifics. We know that we pay interest on a mortgage, okay, but the math is extremely counterintuitive. You take a typical $500,000 house at six or so percent for 30 years. Okay, fine, that's one thing. You'll pay about $3,000 a month. If you have a 50-year mortgage for the same house, you're going to save about $300 a month. People go, wow, that sounds good. But what they don't pay attention to is the fact that they're going to pay an extra half a million dollars in interest.

• 4:57Ed Elson?

  Right.

• 4:58Speaker 05

  The American consumer typically does not understand how mortgages work. That's why they are so profitable for Wall Street. And this is yet another way to make more money off of consumers who do not understand basic math.

• 5:10Ed Elson?

  Why do you think they are proposing this? I've seen some rumors about why someone came to him and had a list of presidents, yes.

• 5:19Speaker 05

  Yeah, that guy, I mean, that guy's under investigation for several different things. The guy's a nut. He's horribly conflicted. And then let's take the recipient who gets an index card and then goes, "Sounds like great national policy. Post it." In addition to that, we have a general historical US government policy of propping up homeownership rates. And this is really important. The goal is not to simply increase the homeownership rate. That should never be the goal. Because if you just want to juice the numbers, you can't. We've seen that happen before in the last recession. You can simply make mortgages available to less qualified people, all in the hopes of increasing that one number. But that is not really the goal.

• 6:04Speaker 05

  The goal should be to help Americans live their rich life, not to juice the numbers for an arbitrary percentage of homeownership to go up.

• 6:13Ed Elson?

  Yeah. I love how you described the religion of homeownership, the cult of homeownership. Could you just describe that for us? Maybe some people have heard you. I know a lot of listeners are fans of you. But describe what is the religion of homeownership? And why are you so against it?

• 6:31Speaker 05

  Homeownership is a religion in America because we use very little logic. Instead, we use trite. Pithy little phrases like you're throwing money away on rent, or you don't want to pay your landlord's mortgage. First of all, how come we never say we're throwing money away on rent when we go to eat out at sushi? We're paying our landlord's mortgage. We're throwing money away on the bill. No, we're not. We're paying for value and we are happy if someone else can cover their bill. Actually, we don't really care. Just give me the sushi and take my dishes. We also do not understand math. Very few people, in my estimation, less than 3% of American homebuyers, actually run a simple buy versus rent calculation.

• 7:14Speaker 05

  Almost nobody knows what an amortization calculator is. So as an example, if you went up to the average homeowner and you said, hey, was buying a house a great decision? They go, yeah, it's so great. They take the big number minus the small number and they think that's their profit. What they don't understand is that if you buy a house today, you will be paying more towards interest than principal for 19 years. These words are foreign to most of us because we do not understand the math. We simply believe the religion that tells us buy a house, then profit somehow. And that's as far as we go.

• 7:49Ed Elson?

  Yeah. Say this goes through. Say we do have 50-year mortgages in America. What would that do to America? What would that do to the finances of Americans? Also, what would it do to the housing market?

• 8:03Speaker 05

  Well, that's the question I'm actually really interested in. I mean, I've seen a lot of discussion about how the prices would simply go up. And I'll be very interested to see what happens. I think in the last 10 years, a lot of economics has surprised many of us. For example, as interest rates went up, housing prices still continued going up. So I'm very interested in that. I can tell you on the individual level, since I speak to so many people on my podcast and my newsletter, that very few people actually understand phantom costs. Most Americans make major purchases simply by the monthly payment. So they literally go into a car dealer. Car dealer named Chet goes, how much you want to pay for this car per month?

• 8:45Speaker 05

  And that's how they make a $48,000 decision. Of course, what we know is that these financial companies are very sophisticated and they understand this weakness in human psychology and they exploit it. So what I would expect to see is that people If they choose to take these 50-year mortgages, which will be positioned as purely advantageous, they will get this massive house, 50-year mortgage, and they will not understand why they cannot seem to afford their day-to-day.

• 9:14Ed Elson?

  Right.

• 9:14Speaker 05

  That's because they didn't factor in maintenance, they're building very little equity, and they never calculated any of these things upfront.

• 9:20Ed Elson?

  Yeah. What do you think is the solution? I mean, we have a housing crisis, and this appears to be sort of the instinct of, oh, we'll just make mortgages more available, and we'll extend the timeline. It sounds like you don't agree with that. I don't agree with that. What is the solution to what's happening in the housing market? How do we make housing more affordable?

• 9:47Speaker 05

  There's only one solution, and that is to build more housing.

• 9:50Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 9:51Speaker 05

  Housing is, in virtually every city in America, housing is illegal to build. You cannot build more on your own property, which you own. You cannot build apartments, duplexes, triplexes, skyscrapers, row houses, none of it in almost every city in America. We have a strong housing crisis, and that is purely because of NIMBYs. It's the people who bought their houses in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and then they pulled the ladder up behind them and said, no more building housing.

• 10:19Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 10:20Speaker 05

  Well, guess what? That's great for them. Their housing prices went way up, but it's not so good for younger people, people of color, and everyone else. And so what has to happen is NIMBYs have to be defeated. There is no other way around it. There is no secret policy that will change this. We need vastly more supply. And the good news is it's starting to happen in California, in New York, and in other places as well. But it's going to take a long time, and we need it now.

• 10:43Ed Elson?

  Defeat the NIMBYs. I love it. Ramit Sethi is the host of the Money for Couples podcast, which I highly recommend you go check out, especially if you're in a couple and finances are a topic of conversation, as it is for everyone. Also, the bestselling author of I Will Teach You to Be Rich. Ramit, always love having you on the podcast.

• 11:02Speaker 05

  My pleasure. Thanks, Ed.

• 11:08Ed Elson?

  Shares in On Running surged yesterday after the company crushed expectations on both the top and bottom lines. The Swiss sneaker maker raised its full year guidance for the third consecutive quarter. It's now expecting 2025 sales of $3.7 billion, up 3% from its previous forecast. Net income nearly quadrupled year over year. The stock jumped as much as 20% on the news. This comes at kind of a challenging time for the athletic wear market. Year to date, On is actually down 24%. Its competitors have fallen too. Nike is down 15%, Adidas is down 30%, and the parent company of Hoka, well, that stock has dropped 60%. So what exactly did On get right this quarter?

• 11:53Ed Elson?

  Will it be enough to turn the stock around? Here to help us break down these earnings, what they mean for investors, we're speaking with Dylan Carden, Senior Analyst at William Blair. Dylan, thanks for joining us on Profy Markets.

• 12:05Speaker 06

  Yeah, thanks for having me. Good to be here.

• 12:08Ed Elson?

  So take us through the earnings. I mean, up 20%. Clearly, Wall Street is very happy about this. What are the headlines in these earnings?

• 12:15Speaker 06

  They're happy now. They weren't happy into it. So I think a lot of what you're seeing, there was some chatter, some intracorder data that suggested trends really fell off the cliff. And there's an underlying anxiety for On that it's going to go the way of Hoka or Sosini or some of these other brands that have allowed a certain amount of oxygen that Nike gave them when they kind of de-emphasized the wholesale channel, right? So you're seeing a lot of sort of trendy pandemic era brands start to crest over. And so those trends, in combination with that broader anxiety, I think what you're really seeing today is just, you know, they live to fight another day. You're not seeing On kind of succumb to the same deceleration.

• 12:52Ed Elson?

  Yeah, tell us more about what's going on with Hoka and Sosini. I mean, I think these are the kinds of brands that most people know about now, I would say. I know what Hoka is. My girlfriend wears them. My sister wears them. These are becoming more and more popular, but it's interesting that actually they're not doing very well right now. And Hoka's parent company down around 60% year to date. What's going on with these sort of lesser known, but kind of known athletic wear brands?

• 13:18Speaker 06

  Yeah, so stocks and fundamentals, right? I mean, two things can be true, they can be popular and they can be decelerating. I think if you look at most popular footwear silhouettes throughout history, Speary, Topsiders, Toms, Stan Smith, you get about six years of the trend. And from a stock perspective, you really want to only own the first three because the latter three are sort of coming down the other side of the mountain. And so the only way to really kind of pull out of that is reinvention, which we can get into. But really what you're seeing is when Nike de-emphasized wholesale, 2019 through 2021, they allowed a lot of shelf space to go to these newer or sort of emergent running brands in particular,

• 13:57Speaker 06

  right? So Hoka, Sosny, Brooks, you know, ASICS, really had a moment whereby Nike's folly was to their benefit. Now you're three, four years into that. And so while the footwear and the brands themselves are still popular, the trend itself is starting to break a little bit.

• 14:13Ed Elson?

  What does this mean for Nike then? And it sounds like a lot of this is downstream of Nike and their decision way back when to kind of get out of the wholesale game. Is Nike doing okay? I mean, where does Nike stand in all of this now?

• 14:29Speaker 06

  My view is that Nike never really had a problem. It's just its scale, right? I mean, they are the largest athletic brand in the world, right? And so when you think about sort of general scaling principles, like Zipp's law, Nike can only be so big and can only really grow with category or population growth, right? So what you see with Nike is that it tends to kind of be steady state. And what's happening now is that sure, it's giving some product mojo back, no question, right? And it's sort of putting a greater sense of urgency into their business. But their North America wholesale business in any given quarter has been two and a half billion for the last decade, right? There's no real growth there. It's just that they're kind of coming back into a channel with some newer products. And I think people are misinterpreting that as some sort of acceleration in the business. The reality is they're just sort of recapturing share

• 15:14Speaker 06

  that they already had, you know, a couple of years ago.

• 15:17Ed Elson?

  You mentioned the sort of three years up and then three years down that we see a lot of with a lot of these lesser known or up and coming footwear brands. It almost sounds like, you know, these brands burst onto the scene. Everyone thinks this is the next Nike and then they're not the next Nike. What do you think about that question as it pertains to On? I think many of us do believe maybe this is the next Nike. Do you think that On could be the next Nike? What would it have to do to to displace Nike as as sort of the king?

• 15:48Speaker 06

  Yeah, yeah. Beware, beware any narrative that is the next anything in my view, but the real fundamental, I think, structure to any longevity or any sustainability is just reinvention.

• 16:00Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 16:00Speaker 06

  Right? So if you look at a Hoka versus an On, Hoka is effectively two silhouettes. Right? I mean, 60% of their business are just two shoes. And if you look at, again, some of those other footwear brands I've mentioned, Allbirds would be in there, right? Tom, Stan Smith, right? Now Samba. They're really undynamic products. They're really a standalone offering, right? If you look at Nike and you take all the same trend data, Nike's Air Force One and certain Jordans, they go through the same six-year cycles. It's just that Nike stacks them up against each other. So it supports the underlying trend of the brand and popularity of the brand. It's it's a concept that's sort of better understood or best understood in artists. Right? No Beatles album was the same. Right? Each iteration was a reinvention with permission from the audience. Right?

• 16:45Speaker 06

  And so On, as opposed to a Hoka, has permission from its customer to reinvent product. They got into tennis, right? They had the Strong Roger Federer connection. They get into hiking as a national extension, training, because people are already using their shoes at the gym. There's natural lifestyle extensions to all of this. Right? So they're really able to move the brand into different directions that while they're, you know, the existing core On silhouette that you think of, that will crest over. It's not to say they're, you know, they're not subject to general corporate gravity.

• 17:16Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 17:16Speaker 06

  It's just that they'll have their seeding more growth behind it to sustain a longer term trajectory of growth.

• 17:21Ed Elson?

  Yeah. Well, final question, and then there you go. Where does Onstand in terms of the almost luxury or at least premium to ultra-premium market? I mean, the way I think of this brand is this is sort of the highest end of athletic wear. Is that the right characterization? Where does it fit in terms of premium?

• 17:42Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, they're trying to go after this sort of perceived white space of premium, not luxury.

• 17:47Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 17:48Speaker 06

  You know, 150-ish per shoe, so certainly higher price point relative to what's out there. I mean, I think most of Nike's business, to put a finer point on it, is done in like the $40 to $60 range.

• 17:58Ed Elson?

  Right.

• 17:59Speaker 06

  So certainly, there's some white space that they see there. You know, we'll see. You know, part of a lot of this is just the broader casualization of the world, right? And so it would make sense that maybe as that's happening, you can move into segments of the market that otherwise wouldn't have been available to you because people are wearing premium product to sort of different occasions. I don't love the premium positioning personally. You know, I think the risk is that there's not as much white space there, right? Just given that higher price point. So that would be something that I'm actually more cautious on with this one.

• 18:30Ed Elson?

  Very interesting. Okay. Dylan Carden, Senior Analyst at William Blair. Really appreciate your time.

• 18:35Speaker 06

  Likewise. Thanks a lot.

• 18:37Ed Elson?

  After the break, a look at the economic impact of the government shutdown. If you're enjoying the show, give Profiteam Markets a follow.

• 19:30Speaker 07

  This is advertiser content from Comcast Business. As cyber threats become more and more machine-based and driven by AI agents, those of us in the cyber defense space were having to invest at the same pace. Hi, I'm Chris McFarlane, Chief Development Officer at Comcast Business. So when we think about the threat of cybersecurity attacks to businesses, they're just a lot more automated. They have the ability to think. They can scale literally anywhere from 100 to thousands of time faster than a human can. The reality is that today, you need to protect every device, every endpoint, every workload that's running on a server, whether it's your own server or in the cloud. This is an area that Comcast Business excels at.

• 20:14Speaker 07

  We're enabling intelligence-driven defense with integrated visibility, AI-powered threat detection, and automated response capabilities that prioritize, correlate, and contain risks before they escalate. And so it doesn't matter whether you're a small business or a medium-sized business or a really large enterprise. We've got this incredible portfolio of cybersecurity solutions and services to really enhance your cybersecurity posture. To learn more about how Comcast Business can help protect your business today, visit ComcastBusiness.com/cybersecurity.

• 20:53Speaker 08

  Are you a pet owner? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the US gets hit with a vet bill over $1,000. Always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance for dogs and cats, according to ConsumerAdvocate.org. You get paid back up to 90% of vet bills at any vet in the US and Canada with claims paid back in as little as two days. Go to FetchPet.com/save right now for your free quote. That's FetchPet.com/save.

• 21:36Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof. Markets. As we record this episode, the House of Representatives is voting on the bill to end the government shutdown, and it is likely to pass. Barring any late surprises, it should be on Trump's desk by the time you hear this. Trump has pledged to sign the bill swiftly, and once he does, things will return to normal. The deal extends funding for most federal agencies until January 30th, guarantees that all federal workers will receive back pay, and reverses the layoffs of thousands of federal workers. So here to help us understand the economic impacts of this shutdown, we're speaking with Robert Sockin, Senior Global Economist at Citi. Robert, thanks for joining us.

• 22:18Speaker 09

  Thank you.

• 22:19Ed Elson?

  So we're recording this while they're voting. It appears that they are going to vote to end the shutdown. When this episode goes out, likely the government will be open. Let's just start with your reflections on this shutdown, the longest in history. How do you think this will be remembered in the future?

• 22:40Speaker 09

  Yeah, I think this is going to be remembered as a very challenging period politically and economically as far as it goes by shutdowns. As you mentioned, it was the longest in history, and we've had shutdowns in the past before. But when you look back at the data of those shutdowns, you don't see a big economic effect. Most of the activity tends to be made up once the government reopens. But I think in this case, we saw a lot of additional disruptions, a wide range of flights being canceled, certain procurements from the government not being paid. And I think the risk of some deeper damage from this episode is more likely this

• 23:24Speaker 09

  time around than in prior shutdowns. So the base case is we're going to make up most of the activity, but there were a lot of stress points, and it's going to really paint a poor picture for shutdowns in the future. If this is the state of play every time we get into a shutdown, then it could potentially be this divisive and this long.

• 23:42Ed Elson?

  Yeah, we're seeing a lot of frightening estimates of the costs. We saw one around $100 billion. What are the costs that we've seen from this shutdown? What are the damages to the economy, and how are we able to measure those things?

• 23:59Speaker 09

  Yeah, absolutely. And there's kind of, I would break up into sort of two categories. There's the direct effects of the shutdown. And that is largely government workers being furloughed, not working during those periods, um, not being paid. Um, certain uh provisions from the government, like we saw with SNAP benefits, not being paid.

• 24:21Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 24:21Speaker 09

  Um, and that is sort of the direct effect. And um, much of that, as I mentioned, tends to be made up when the government's reopened. You don't get back the lost hours. The government employees didn't work, but as the back pay is filled in, you'll get those spending uh recovery. Um, and those procurements will restart. So those are sort of the direct effects. Um, most of that, as I said, will be made up. The indirect effects are a bit harder. You know, uh, if you look at, for example, the Washington DC area. There are a lot of businesses there that just largely serve government workers and those businesses took a large hit in revenue. Um, that will not come back, most likely, at least a lot of it. Some of those businesses may be permanently impaired. It remains to be seen.

• 25:03Speaker 09

  But the private sector spillovers are much harder to measure in real time. We'll see as more data come out. The data that we have make it look like those spillovers have been pretty limited to date. Uh, but those are the sort of two sets of effects. The government shock, most of that being made up, private sector shock, um, hard to assess at this stage, but there's going to be some permanently lost output from this.

• 25:26Ed Elson?

  What about some of the federal data? And we just learned we're not getting the jobs report for October. It seems that one of the other uh fallouts of this is just a lot of the data went dark. Um, how big of a problem has that been, especially for you as an economist? I mean, your job is to to know what the numbers are telling us.

• 25:46Speaker 09

  Yeah, this has been another challenging element of this is you sort of have the economic story, how big are those effects? But then you've also had the data impairment and for um analysts like myself who are monitoring the economy, it's created a really challenging backdrop. And I think it's important to note is going to continue to create a challenging backdrop um over the next few months. Uh, and so. The majority of the best data that we have for the US, the things like the monthly jobs report, the monthly inflation reports that we receive, those are government produced reports. And those are the main things that we rely on to assess the health of the economy. We have a lot of other data that we look at, things like the purchasing manager indexes

• 26:30Speaker 09

  that come out, private sector reports like ADP, those help paint a picture of the economy, but they are second best to a lot of these government resources. And now that the government is reopening, we are going to get that data restarting, but it's going to be probably lower quality than it normally is because we already found out, as you mentioned, probably not getting reports that would have been collected in October, at least immediately. And even the data that's going to come out from November, a lot of that collection is going to be impaired or shortened. And so I think we're going to be in a very challenging data picture through at least the end of the year. I think it'll all work itself out by the start of 2026.

• 27:14Speaker 09

  But that's been another angle of the shutdown, very hard to assess the economy without the best data sources that we typically get.

• 27:20Ed Elson?

  You mentioned that this shutdown is likely to be worse than others. I mean, it sounds like we've had previous shutdowns. It's been painful, but then you kind of recoup those losses later. But this one, it's more of a question. Why is that? Is it because it's so long and so it's going to be so much more difficult? Or what exactly makes this different from previous shutdowns we've seen?

• 27:45Speaker 09

  Yeah, exactly. And you know, if you look at the sort of typical estimates of how much the shutdowns tend to drag on economic growth, you tend to lose something between 10 and 20 basis points per week on annualized GDP growth as long as the shutdown is ongoing. I would be more at the upper end of that range. But you know, that is based on a lot of analysis of those factors that I mentioned, mostly that that first bucket, the government elements of the shutdown. But that second element. The private sector spillovers are much hard to assess. And if you have a very short shutdown, probably those are very limited.

• 28:28Speaker 09

  But I do think there's a strong argument that the longer a shutdown goes on, the higher risk that the economic effects become nonlinear and you get bigger effects later on. So that's the big question mark right now. And as I mentioned, the data sources that we do have outside the government sources, those don't paint a picture that things have deteriorated sharply over the last month and a half. But that is the big risk, yes, that the longer it goes on, you're more in uncharted territory because of those spillover risks to the private sector.

• 29:00Ed Elson?

  Do you think we'll see more shutdowns in the future? Is this, is this going to be one of the impacts?

• 29:06Speaker 09

  I think that is a very reasonable takeaway from what we've seen

• 29:12Speaker 09

  from this most recent shutdown, especially because if you look at the deal that's been struck, it funds the government through the end of the year. In theory, we could be back in the same camp in several weeks' time. I don't think that's likely that we'll end up right back where we were, given that the painful elements we've seen in this episode. But I think the shutdown is a reflection of the challenging political backdrop we're in, where the two sides are very far apart on a lot of issues. And to me, when you have that type of backdrop, that means shutdowns are more likely going forward. So I don't think we're going to be back here in a few, in several weeks, even though there's a risk of that.

• 29:54Speaker 09

  But I do think the probability of more shutdowns going forward is higher now.

• 29:59Ed Elson?

  All right, Robert Sockin, Senior Global Economist at Citi. Robert, really appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.

• 30:05Speaker 09

  Thank you.

• 30:09Ed Elson?

  Well, it's been a busy few weeks in the news cycle. There's been a lot of talk about AI and the bubble concerns. We've had layoff concerns with AI. We've seen the rise of Mamdani. We've seen tariff drama. We've seen the China deal, the Epstein emails. A lot is happening. And if you were to just sort of go off of the headlines, I think you'd get the sense that this government shutdown that we've seen here is, yes, a big deal, but maybe not a huge deal. It's kind of important, but also just another news item.

• 30:43Ed Elson?

  And that is the problem with the new cycle today because actually this shutdown is a huge deal. It is historic and somehow everything else has distracted us away from its significance and also the impact it's had and it's had a huge impact. Let's just go through the numbers. First off, the length. I mean, this shutdown lasted 43 days, the longest in the history of America by far. It was a full week longer than the previous record that was set in 2018 and two weeks longer than the one before that. And there have been very serious consequences. More than 700,000 federal employees went nearly

• 31:25Ed Elson?

  50 days without getting paid, without a paycheck. Another 700,000 were furloughed altogether. So that's almost one and a half million people who were directly affected by this. And that's just people who work for the government. You look at people outside of government who were directly affected. The number goes way up. It's tens of millions. 12% of Americans feed themselves through SNAP, the government's nutritional assistance program. So that's 40 million people who were likely struggling to feed themselves last month. By the way, 60% of those people are either elderly people or children. So these are the people that were affected by this. Then there's all the indirect consequences

• 32:08Ed Elson?

  that we saw. The 6% of flights that were cancelled because there just weren't enough air traffic controllers, all of the federal loan programs, the ones that finance small businesses and also finance mortgages, all of them went dark. All of the health data that tracks all of our most transmissible diseases, those got shut down too. Multiple infrastructure projects, including ones that would help us close this energy gap we keep talking about with China, they were simply cancelled. So most of us can't really see it. But the impacts of this event were actually enormous. And we can try to put a number on it. The current estimates say that the cost to the economy were nearly $100 billion.

• 32:51Ed Elson?

  But even that is probably an understatement because the other problem we have here is we're not getting any proper data. And we haven't seen the jobs report. We haven't seen the consumption data. We haven't seen the GDP data. We haven't seen any inflation data, which by the way, is why the White House is now publishing data from DoorDash because they can't produce the data themselves. So quite frankly, we don't know the half of this. I mean, we know it was bad, but we don't know exactly how bad because we don't have the data to tell us. And that is why it is so important to just recognize the significance of this shutdown.

• 33:33Ed Elson?

  Yes, lots of other stuff is happening and yes, some of it is quite important, but for the most part, right now, the zone is being flooded with shit. And it is all a distraction from what a disaster this really was. The least a nation should expect from its government, never mind the inefficiencies and the polarization, the corruption, never mind all that. The least we should expect is a government that is operational. And for 43 days, the longest period in history, this government couldn't even meet that standard. The world moves on. The economy continues to grind.

• 34:18Ed Elson?

  The earth continues to turn, but let's be sure to remember this month of October for what it was. And that is, it was one of the greatest government failures in history. And somehow the bar, which was already very low, that bar is now even lower. Okay. That's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Passon and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Our research team is Dan Shalane, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Donoghue and Mia Silverio. And our technical director is Drew Burrows. Thanks for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson.

• 35:01Ed Elson?

  Tune in tomorrow for our conversation with Professor Aswath Damodaran.

• 35:10Speaker 02

  The world of business is constantly evolving, and Comcast Business keeps you totally in step with secure, AI-backed networking in more than 100 countries. They're powering over 90% of the Fortune 500 and millions of small businesses. That's a lot of muscle. And behind it all, thousands of experts answering your call at 2:00 a.m. like it's 2:00 p.m. One partner powering how business gets done for companies around the globe. When you add it all up, no one does business like Comcast Business. Go to ComcastBusiness.com/Enterprise to learn more.

• 35:48Speaker 10

  Support for this show comes from Harvey AI. The future of law is agentic, not just tools that assist, but AI agents that navigate complex matters. That's why Harvey created agents that can do the work from end to end. They build a plan, pull from secure data sources, run subagents in parallel, and draft the work product ready for your review. So you delegate the work and on the judgment. Trusted by more than 60% of the Am Law 100 and leading Fortune 500 legal teams, Harvey is the AI operating system designed specifically for legal work. Harvey, AI tailored for law. Learn more at Harvey.ai.

• 36:28Speaker 11

  AI is moving fast across the enterprise. But without visibility, it's just chaos. Different tools, different models, different teams using AI in completely different ways. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI Control Tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place. What it's doing, what it's done, and what it's about to do. So you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com.