When you read the papers and watch the news, you won’t see much about economics. With earnings season just about over and with the major economic reports looking a bit better, investors don’t have a lot of data to worry about—at least until the next set of releases. Instead, now we are worrying about politics.

I have written versions of this post before, but it is demanding to be written again. So, here we go.

A controversial topic currently exciting economists goes by the name of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). While there are many ways to interpret it (as you can see from its name, it doesn’t actually describe anything), the key tenet is that deficits don’t matter. Governments that control their own currencies, like the U.S., can spend whatever they want simply by printing more money. The controversy doesn’t come from this assertion—it’s a simple fact—but from the different interpretations of what, exactly, this means.

First, there was “Grexit,” which was the name given to the possibility that Greece would leave the eurozone. Then, there was “Brexit,” the plan for the U.K.’s exit from the European Union, which is actually happening (at least potentially). Now, we have “Italeave,” which I think sounds better than the other contender, “Italexit.” So what’s going on with Italy?

As I have been saying, things are pretty good, economically speaking, as we move into the new year. But there is one significant risk that we need to watch. I’m speaking of the pending deadline (midnight today) when funding for the government runs out. At that time, the U.S. debt ceiling extension ends, the government cannot borrow any more money, and—if Congress (including both Republicans and Democrats) can’t come to some sort of an agreement—the government shuts down.

Yesterday’s news that the Democrats won the Alabama special Senate election, for the first time in 25 years, rattled U.S. politics. By taking the Republican majority in the Senate from 52 to 51, it reduces an already tight margin for difficult votes. By signaling that even the reddest states are now potentially in play for the Democrats, it could be a bellwether for the 2018 midterms. But what does the Alabama election mean for the markets?

As I have been saying, things are pretty good, economically speaking, as we approach the end of the year. At the same time, there are some significant risks in the next couple of weeks that we need to keep an eye on.

In thinking about the market over the past week or two, what has really struck me is how truly remarkable the market’s behavior has been. After the U.S. president implicitly threatened nuclear war, the market dropped, of course—but by less than 2 percent—and then it bounced back. Today, after CEOs from big-time companies essentially abandoned the White House, the market is down—but by less than 1 percent. We’ve seen more political drama in the past couple of weeks than we saw in years under some administrations—and the market is just sitting there. What’s going on?

Once more we have news from Washington that suggests the Republicans will not be able to move forward on a core priority—health care reform. You might expect political dysfunction at this level to disrupt the markets, but apparently you would be wrong. The markets are down a bit, but not much, and remain within 1 percent of the all-time high. What’s going on here?

There’s an important—and potentially very disruptive—issue that has been largely ignored during coverage of the health care debate. The U.S. government hit its borrowing limit on March 16, 2017. Yes, that’s right—the U.S. borrowed as much as it legally can four months ago. Since then, the Treasury has been using the usual “extraordinary measures” to fund the government, including “borrowing” from government pension funds, diverting various funds tasked to other purposes, and looking for spare change in the laundry and the washer to pay the bills.