The History of U.S. Stocks is, Behind It, a History of American Wars

marsbitPublicado a 2026-05-08Actualizado a 2026-05-08

Resumen

The article argues that the history of the U.S. stock market is deeply intertwined with American military conflicts. While current Middle East tensions raise economic concerns, major indices like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq continue hitting new highs. Historical analysis shows U.S. wars, from the Spanish-American War to recent conflicts in the Middle East, have often coincided with market gains, as seen in the Dow Jones's performance during these periods. The U.S. transitioned from a war participant to an initiator, with most conflicts post-Vietnam being short, focused on oil, and achieving strategic goals. The market's reaction to war has evolved. Pre-1950s, investor sentiment directly drove swings based on battle outcomes. From the Korean War onward, the focus shifted to economic channels like inflation, oil prices, and fiscal policy. For instance, during the Gulf War, stock movements inversely correlated with oil price swings. The primary beneficiary industries have also changed: coal dominated WWII, oil surged during Korea and Vietnam, but by the Gulf War, the indirect economic impact made consumer staples outperform. Overall, as the U.S. economy grew, the direct market impact of individual wars diminished, giving way to broader macroeconomic factors like interest rates and deficits as the key drivers.

Written by: Li Jia

Source: Wall Street News

When cannons roar, gold pours in. Just as the market is hotly debating whether Middle East conflicts will drag down the global economy, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indices have both hit new record highs. What exactly does war mean for U.S. stocks?

A report from Caitong Securities provides a straightforward answer: War and the long-term bull market in U.S. stocks are not opposites but rather symbiotic. The historical performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average confirms this—it rose 28% during the Spanish-American War, 26% during the Korean War, and still gained over 80% during the 19-year Vietnam War, while nearly doubling during the Afghanistan War, which spanned the period around the 2008 financial crisis.

Since becoming the world's largest economy at the end of the 19th century, the U.S. has gained substantial benefits from most wars it fought, except for the Vietnam War. From seizing Spanish colonies in the Spanish-American War to profiting handsomely from the two World Wars, and further to the Gulf War and subsequent smaller-scale conflicts centered around oil resources, the U.S. completed its transformation from a 'war participant' to a 'war initiator.'

The reaction path of U.S. stocks amid the sound of gunfire is also clear: During WWII and earlier wars, the market was primarily impacted through sentiment shocks. Starting with the Korean War, this direct effect gradually weakened, and wars increasingly transmitted their impact to the stock market through economic channels like inflation, oil prices, and fiscal deficits.

The Vietnam War was the only war where the U.S. suffered a 'loss,' and it profoundly rewrote its war logic. Since then, almost every conflict initiated by the U.S. has shared three characteristics: short duration, limited geographic scope, and a focus on oil—with all ultimately achieving their objectives.

From 'Taking Advantage of a Fire' to Initiating Trouble: The Three Shifts in American War Strategy

The 1898 Spanish-American War was the first major war actively initiated by the U.S. At that time, domestic monopoly conglomerates urgently needed new markets, investment venues, and sources of raw materials, and Spain's crumbling colonial empire became the ideal target. After the war, the U.S. gained control over Cuba and acquired the Philippine Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 28% during the three-month war, in sync with victories on the main battlefields.

When World War I broke out, the U.S. initially remained neutral. During the market closure in July 1914, investors realized America would become the biggest beneficiary of the European conflict—its homeland, far from the battlefield, could continue production and export arms to Europe. By 1917, American banks, including J.P. Morgan, had provided $10 billion in loans to the British and French governments for purchasing weapons. Although the index fell nearly 10% after the official entry into the war in April 1917, the industrial index had already risen approximately 107% from its low in 1914 to March 1917.

World War II was the crucial conflict that established the U.S. as a global hegemon. At the outbreak in September 1939, U.S. stocks initially fell due to suppressed corporate earnings expectations from the 'excess profits tax'—Congress imposed a tiered tax of up to 95% on profits exceeding $5,000, severely dampening the numerator in the Dividend Discount Model (DDM). It wasn't until the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway in May 1942 turned the tide of war that investors keenly sensed the war's direction, leading U.S. stocks to bottom out and rebound ahead of time. The industrial index rose 82% in the latter half of the war, the transportation index rose 127%, and the utilities index surged 203%.

The Korean War was the first war the U.S. 'did not win.' Although military demand stimulated the post-WWII sluggish economy, the U.S. military failed to achieve its stated objectives. Nonetheless, the Dow Jones Industrial Average still rose 26% throughout the entire period, with the transportation index soaring 86%.

The Vietnam War became a watershed; it was the only war where the U.S. was defeated and gained no benefits.

The U.S. defense budget skyrocketed from $49.6 billion in 1961 to $81.9 billion in 1968 (43.3% of the federal budget), the fiscal deficit ballooned from $3.7 billion to $25 billion, and inflation rose from 1.5% to 4.7%. The U.S. share of the world's total GDP fell from 34% to less than 30%. Post-war, U.S. war strategy shifted completely: it abandoned large-scale ground wars in favor of short-duration, low-casualty, air-strike-centric 'proxy-style' conflicts.

Subsequent wars—the Gulf War, Kosovo War, Afghanistan War, and Iraq War—were all without exception initiated by the U.S., leveraging local conflicts or black swan events. The war zones were mainly concentrated in the Middle East and the Balkans, with the core objectives revolving around oil resource control and military demand.

The Transmission of War to the Stock Market Has Changed: From Sentiment-Driven to Economy-Driven

During WWII and earlier, war events often directly impacted investor sentiment. During the Spanish-American War, victories at the Battle of Manila Bay and the Battle of Santiago de Cuba each drove the index up by about 10% within ten days. In contrast, news of the U.S. entering the two World Wars often triggered panic selling.

But starting with the Korean War, this direct impact gradually faded. From November 1950 to February 1951, despite successive retreats by UN and U.S. forces, the U.S. stock market continued to rise—the reason being that the post-WWII stagnant economy restarted during the Korean War: U.S. real GDP grew about 8.7% in 1950 and remained above 8% in 1951. The fiscal expansion brought by the war, in turn, became a catalyst for economic recovery.

This shift became even more pronounced during the Vietnam War. The Battle of Ia Drang in November 1965 (the first large-scale battle for U.S. troops in Vietnam) did not cause a significant market shock; the 'Tet Offensive' launched by North Vietnam in early 1968 also failed to stop U.S. stocks from reaching new highs. What truly drove the market was instead the Federal Reserve tightening credit conditions in 1966 in response to Vietnam War expenditures, along with the two economic recessions of 1969-1970 and 1973-1975. War sentiment had given way to macroeconomic policy and corporate earnings.

The Gulf War provides the clearest case of 'economic transmission.' After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, oil prices surged, and the market anticipated a U.S. economic recession, pushing S&P 500 valuations to a bottom. When coalition forces bombed Baghdad in January 1991, oil prices fell back to pre-war levels, and the stock market rebounded in sync. During the war, the Dow and crude oil prices moved almost perfectly inversely—the market was trading the trade-off between inflation and growth.

The 2001 Afghanistan War and the 2003 Iraq War further validated this pattern. The most symbolic moment was perhaps the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011—arguably the most breakthrough moment in the Afghanistan War. The next day, the Dow fell a mere 0.02%, and the S&P 500 declined 0.18%. The market almost completely ignored the news.

In summary, the reaction of U.S. stocks to war has undergone a clear evolution path: shifting from 'sentiment dominance' to 'economic transmission.' Early wars directly shook the market through news of victories and defeats, but since the Korean War, the stock market has increasingly focused on real economic variables like fiscal expansion, inflation expectations, oil price volatility, and monetary policy.

War itself is no longer the reason for rises or falls; how war affects growth and costs is what the market truly prices.

Which Industry Profits from War? The Answer is Changing

During WWII, coal was the lifeblood of war. Bituminous coal's share rose from 43.8% pre-war to 48.9%, and the industry cumulatively rose 415%.

During the Korean War, oil took over as the new protagonist. Crude oil extraction and refining took the top two spots for gains, with profits climbing continuously from mid-1950 to the first half of 1952. During the Vietnam War, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system forced the U.S. dollar to depreciate, and OPEC was allowed to raise prices to compensate for losses. The oil extraction industry exploded during the dollar crisis from late 1970 to early 1973, surging a staggering 1378% throughout the war.

The Kosovo War continued this pattern, with raw materials and energy industries performing best.

The Gulf War is the only exception—the transmission path shifted to the indirect mode of 'oil price → economic expectations,' making consumer staples and health industries advantageous in the short term, while energy, raw materials, industrials, and other heavy-asset sectors performed the worst.

A notable trend is: As the U.S. economy's size has expanded, the defense industry has transformed from a growth engine into a fundamental part of the economy. The marginal contribution of any single war to the overall economy has been declining, and the driving force for the stock market has increasingly shifted to macroeconomic variables like inflation, interest rates, and fiscal deficits.


Preguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, how has the relationship between war and the U.S. stock market evolved over time?

AThe relationship has evolved from one where war directly impacted the market through sentiment (e.g., WWII and earlier), to one where its influence is transmitted indirectly through economic channels like inflation, oil prices, and fiscal deficits (e.g., from the Korean War onwards). The market now prices how war affects growth and costs, not the war events themselves.

QWhat was the turning point in U.S. war strategy according to the analysis, and what were its key features?

AThe Vietnam War was the turning point. It was the only war the U.S. lost and gained no benefit from. Post-Vietnam, U.S. strategy shifted to conflicts characterized by being short in duration, small in scale, and centered around oil resources, often fought through proxies or with air power dominance.

QWhich sector benefited the most during World War II, and how did the leading sector change in subsequent major conflicts?

ADuring World War II, the coal industry benefited the most, with its share of production rising significantly. In subsequent conflicts, the leading sector shifted: petroleum took the lead during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. However, the Gulf War was an exception, where consumer staples and healthcare performed better due to the indirect economic transmission via oil prices.

QHow did the U.S. stock market react to key battlefield victories in early wars versus significant events in modern wars, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden?

AIn early wars like the Spanish-American War, key battlefield victories (e.g., Manila Bay) caused immediate and significant stock market rallies (~10% in 10 days). In contrast, modern wars show a muted direct reaction. For example, the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 resulted in only minor daily movements in major indices, indicating the market had become largely indifferent to such event-driven war news.

QWhat role did World War I and World War II play in America's rise to global economic dominance, according to the article?

AWorld War I allowed the initially neutral U.S. to profit massively by producing and exporting arms and supplies to European allies, with banks providing huge loans. World War II was the key conflict that cemented America's global霸主 (hegemony) status. Although initial war taxes suppressed corporate profits, the market rebounded strongly after pivotal battles turned the tide, and the war effort ultimately solidified the U.S. as the world's leading economic and military power.

Lecturas Relacionadas

GensynAI : Que la IA no repita los errores de Internet

En los últimos meses, el auge de la IA ha atraído talento del sector cripto. Muchos proyectos exploran cómo la blockchain puede integrarse en la infraestructura de IA, pero pocos logran un modelo de negocio cerrado. Gensyn se distingue al enfocarse en el núcleo más costoso: el entrenamiento de modelos. Su propuesta es organizar recursos de GPU dispersos globalmente en una red abierta para entrenamiento de IA. Los desarrolladores pueden enviar tareas, los nodos aportan capacidad de cálculo, y la red verifica los resultados y distribuye incentivos. Esto aborda un problema crítico: la creciente centralización del poder de cálculo en grandes tecnológicas, donde el acceso a GPUs como la H100 se ha convertido en una barrera clave para la innovación. Gensyn destaca por cuatro razones: 1. Ataca la capa de infraestructura central de la IA (entrenamiento), no solo aplicaciones. 2. Ofrece un modelo de colaboración abierto que puede optimizar costes y eficiencia para equipos más pequeños. 3. Su principal barrera tecnológica y ventaja es la capacidad de verificar resultados y garantizar fiabilidad en un entorno distribuido. 4. Responde a una demanda real y creciente en un mercado ya validado, más allá de la narrativa cripto. En conclusión, la frontera entre cripto e IA se desdibuja. La IA necesita coordinación de recursos e incentivos para la colaboración global, áreas donde la tecnología blockchain puede aportar soluciones. Gensyn representa un paso hacia una infraestructura de IA más abierta y accesible, no solo controlada por unos pocos gigantes.

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

GensynAI : Que la IA no repita los errores de Internet

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

¿Por qué el desarrollo de la IA en China es tan rápido? La respuesta está dentro de sus laboratorios

El artículo explora las razones del rápido desarrollo de la IA en China, centrándose en la cultura organizativa de sus laboratorios. A diferencia del ecosistema estadounidense, que prioriza la innovación disruptiva, el capital y las "estrellas" científicas individuales, el enfoque chino se caracteriza por un pragmatismo basado en la ejecución en equipo, la ingeniería eficiente, la rápida iteración y un fuerte deseo de controlar la pila tecnológica clave. Los laboratorios chinos sobresalen como "seguidores rápidos", optimizando direcciones ya establecidas. Una cultura que valora menos el ego individual y más el trabajo en equipo, combinada con una gran afluencia de jóvenes investigadores y estudiantes integrados en proyectos centrales, facilita una adaptación ágil y un enfoque en tareas prácticas de mejora de modelos. Existe un respeto general dentro del ecosistema, que se percibe más como una comunidad que como tribus en competencia. En el ámbito industrial, se observa una mentalidad de "construir, no comprar", con muchas grandes empresas tecnológicas desarrollando sus propios modelos LLM fundamentales para mantener la soberanía tecnológica. El apoyo gubernamental existe pero es descentralizado. La demanda interna de IA está creciendo, potencialmente similar al mercado de la nube, y los desarrolladores muestran una fuerte admiración por herramientas como Claude. Aunque hay una gran necesidad de chips de Nvidia, también se utilizan alternativas locales como Huawei para inferencia. El ecosistema de datos es menos maduro que en Occidente, lo que fomenta soluciones internas. En conclusión, se están formando dos trayectorias distintas: una carrera impulsada por el capital y el prestigio en EE.UU. frente a una competencia industrial impulsada por la capacidad de ejecución, el ecosistema de código abierto y la autonomía tecnológica en China. El autor destaca la calidez y el enfoque pragmático de los investigadores chinos, subrayando que la competencia futura dependerá no solo de los modelos, sino también de las capacidades organizativas y la fuerza del ecosistema.

marsbitHace 12 hora(s)

¿Por qué el desarrollo de la IA en China es tan rápido? La respuesta está dentro de sus laboratorios

marsbitHace 12 hora(s)

3 años, 5 veces: el renacimiento de una fábrica de vidrio centenaria

Según CRU, la demanda de fibra óptica en centros de datos de IA creció un 75,9% anual, ampliando el déficit de oferta del 6% al 15%. Los precios de la fibra se triplicaron en meses. NVIDIA invirtió en Corning, Lumentum y Coherent (total 45 mil millones USD) para asegurar la cadena de suministro óptica. Corning, fundada en 1851, ve su valor subir un 316,81% en el último año, alcanzando 160 mil millones USD. Su crecimiento se debe a dos factores clave: la rigidez de la oferta (el proceso de fabricación de preformas es complejo y lento) y la transición forzada de cobre a fibra en infraestructuras de IA para mayor eficiencia y menor consumo energético. La fibra es crucial para la IA: su uso en bastidores de IA es 5-10 veces mayor que en centros tradicionales. Se espera que la demanda de fibra para IA represente el 35% del mercado total para 2027. Corning lidera en fibra especializada de baja pérdida, alta densidad y resistencia a la curvatura, esencial para transmisiones de 800G a 1,6T. Sus ingresos en comunicación óptica para empresas se duplicaron en dos años, superando los 30 mil millones USD en 2025, respaldados por acuerdos a largo plazo con Meta, NVIDIA y otros grandes clientes. Aunque no es el mayor fabricante global, Corning destaca en I+D (más de 10 mil millones USD anuales) y en su enfoque en el segmento premium de centros de datos de IA. El aumento de precios beneficia a toda la industria, como muestran los resultados de empresas chinas. El despliegue de Óptica de Co-Embalaje (CPO) y la posible adopción de fibra hueca son variables futuras clave. Sin embargo, la rápida apreciación de las acciones de Corning (multiplicando por 3 su relación P/E) ya refleja grandes expectativas, lo que podría aumentar la volatilidad si los pedidos no cumplen con el ritmo esperado.

marsbitHace 13 hora(s)

3 años, 5 veces: el renacimiento de una fábrica de vidrio centenaria

marsbitHace 13 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片