In U.S. history, there have been only three budget-related shutdowns lasting more than a week: one in 1995-1996 that lasted 21 days, a second in 2013 that lasted 16 days, and the most recent in 2018-2019 , which lasted 35 days.

In any case, the cries of fear across the country, particularly the appearance of government workers in grocery lines as hundreds of thousands of them went without pay during the shutdown, created enormous pressure on Washington and led to the shutdown being quickly completed.

However, for these three closures, estimates of damage to the economy were minimal. The 2019 shutdown cost the U.S. economy $21.4 trillion an estimated $3 billion hit–only 0.01% of GDP.

There was certainly a temporary disruption to government business due to the shutdown. It impacted things like SBA loans to small businesses, federal mortgage loan applications, the processing of export licenses, loans and guarantees, and the processing of federal small business contracts. There were delays in passport processing and the closure of national parks, disappointing thousands of holidaymakers. It halted distribution of critical food and cash assistance such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). There was even the specter of travel delays as it affected the availability of TSA agents and air traffic controllers.

Government shutdowns are a political and legislative negotiating tactic. One side strongly opposes spending on a particular program and has the votes necessary to block approval of the budget unless that program is cut or eliminated – or another side insists on adding a program and has the votes necessary to block the approval of the budget unless this program is included in it. It’s a political game of who will be the first to turn a blind eye and give in to the other side – unless there is a major compromise.

A central premise that those seeking to cut spending articulate in the debates leading to government shutdowns is that increased government debt would trigger a crisis — and the government would be unable to raise additional funds through debt to obtain. In fact, in August 2023, Fitch Ratings cut U.S. debt by one notch, from AAA to AA+, citing the “deterioration” of the country’s finances, growing debt burden and “erosion of governance.” S&P made a similar move in 2011. However, these steps changed essentially nothing, and there was never any indication that the U.S. government would be unable to finance its debt.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect more closures of this kind in the future. Like presidential impeachment, shutdowns could become one of the recurring features of American political life.

Although previous government shutdowns had little impact on the U.S. economy, the political fallout negatively impacted those perceived to be the cause of the shutdowns. Georgia Representative and Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich’s political career was negatively affected by the 1996 shutdown. Some believe that Donald Trump lost more than he gained from the 2019 shutdown and that this had some impact on the 2020 election.

Still, such is the rancor and depth of political divisions in Washington that we should expect more shutdowns in the future. As disruptive as future closures will be, if they are as brief as the closures of 1996, 2013 and 2019, the economy will continue to ignore them.

The real risk comes when these harsh negotiating tactics become routine. If that happens, negotiators will begin testing the limitations of the closures, and the day will surely come when they are extended well beyond the 35 days of 2019 closures. The economy can survive a standstill of a few weeks. If hardball political tactics result in a month-long shutdown, real and lasting harm can occur.

Richard VagueHis career has spanned fields as diverse as banking, energy, government and the arts. Most recently he served as Secretary of Banks and Securities for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Previously, Vague was managing partner of Gabriel Investments, an early-stage venture capital firm, co-founder, chairman and CEO of Energy Plus, an electric and natural gas utility company, and co-founder and CEO of two banks: First USA, which was sold to Bank One, and Juniper, which was sold to Barclays PLC. He is the author from The Paradox of Debt: A New Path to Prosperity Without Crisis.

Worth reading more comment published by Assets:

• Actually CEO: “AI is changing the way we find jobs and the way we work.” People like me shouldn’t be alone when making decisions that affect millions of people.
• Why critics? I love hating Elon Musk–and why his fans love him
• Burnout attacks our brain and it becomes more difficult to excel at work. “Conscious calm” can help us adapt
• The trade war between the USA and China is counterproductive – and that The chip of the Huawei P60 is just one of the many unforeseen consequences

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com comments are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Assets.