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

Conversation with Charles Zhang: Amidst the AI Frenzy, Why Pursue 'Anti-Efficiency' Content?

Dialogue with Charles Zhang: In the Era of AI's Sprint, Why Create "Anti-Efficiency" Content Standing out among China's early internet pioneers, Charles Zhang, founder and CEO of Sohu, maintains a distinct personal identity. He keeps a consistent public presence and embodies traits of high-energy individuals: sleeping only 4-5 hours daily, running 5km or marathons, and hosting frequent offline tech forums and dialogues with Nobel laureates. He has shifted focus from external business expansion to internal self-reconstruction, adhering to his own pace. "People aren't afraid of being busy; the busier you are, the better your health. Having nothing to do can lead to emotional issues and poor health." Marking the 10th anniversary of his live-streamed "Charles Zhang's English Class," he recently took it offline for a real-world classroom session. Following this, he discussed the course's decade-long journey, Sohu Video's content ecosystem, and the value of content in the AI era. **Pen and Mouth Diligence: A Class Against Instant Mastery** His English class began in August 2016 on "Qianfan Live." He spends about 40 minutes daily preparing, reviewing dozens of news headlines, reading five in detail, and selecting three for the lesson. Over ten years, he has completed over 2000 live sessions totaling more than 110,000 minutes, with over 52 million views. Initially, the stream was a way to "talk more" and combat emotional struggles. He started by repeating after TV news anchors, then moved to live-streaming with the launch of Qianfan Live. It was 40% for personal emotional regulation ("like a monk chanting sutras"), 30% to deliver authentic news, and 30% to promote the new platform. This daily "ritual" helped him overcome depression, leading to what he calls his "peak life state." From a product perspective, it was counter-intuitive—launched without prior market research or growth strategies, based on the founder's personal need that resonated with users. Yet, his content creation follows a strict routine. The decade of covering geopolitics, economics, tech, health, and society has built a vast "knowledge compound interest" system. In an age of AI summaries and algorithmic content, Zhang insists on "hard work": meticulous reading, handwritten notes, and manually created teaching materials, refusing AI-generated content. The English class is now a fixed daily rhythm; preparing for his weekly physics class requires a full day of solitary deduction on a blackboard. In his live streams, Zhang positions himself as a "content creator," not a CEO or teacher. He sees physics as extreme brain training and English as a "sensor" to understand the world. This explains why a top entrepreneur persists for a decade in seemingly "unprofessional" pursuits—it's the information input and psychological healing method he found during a low point. It's fundamentally an "anti-efficiency" commitment. He believes the meaning of reading lies in finding community and spiritual support, not just fleeting conversation points. For today's media, he states: "Reading news isn't the goal. As humans with many confusions, we need reference points, to find a group, find kindred spirits, or seek support and spiritual nourishment. Large language models can't satisfy these starting points; they only give you information." This offers solace and a value defense for media professionals impacted by AI summaries. **"Don't Think Earth Stops Turning Because AI Arrived"** A content creator expressed anxiety: after feeding their article to AI, it produced a more comprehensive, profound version, making their work feel valueless. Zhang responded with an analogy: "Carrots from the market, with a bit of soil, not glossy, taste delicious and flavorful. Tomatoes forced by chemical fertilizer have no taste at all." He sees AI giving world content a "plastic feel," but acknowledges its significant role in improving information access efficiency, especially in physics and social science research where he often queries AI for quick professional answers. The key, Zhang stresses, is that the outside world still needs to guide our perspective. LLMs provide "information," while the outside world offers "viewpoints." He cares deeply about *what* that external viewpoint is and *how* someone thinks about an issue. "Don't think the Earth stops turning because AI arrived," he analyzes. AI currently replaces rule-based work, noting significant impact on the software industry with many programmers laid off as even less experienced people can now write decent code. However, AI cannot yet replace arts, social sciences, emotions, and creative content. "Hollywood remains thriving, producing great works. Oscars will continue, Nobel Literature Prizes will still be awarded—all by real people, with works conceived by real people." While wary of AI, Zhang isn't anti-technology and is open to its applications. Sohu itself has launched AI assistants. In Sohu's AI practice, Zhang defines his role as a "large language model corpus provider." He believes LLM training is inseparable from human-original content as its data foundation, so original content retains irreplaceable value. "The era of self-media indeed offers everyone new ways to discover their strengths and achieve growth." He suggests every young person should consider self-media. Most importantly, the bottom line of content creation should be "authenticity." If using AI avatars, they must be clearly labeled; not doing so and misleading viewers wastes their time, especially when people still prefer real human content. Behind AI's sprint lie unavoidable realities. As AI quickly provides seemingly perfect answers, people grow accustomed to accepting "summarized" results, omitting processes of questioning, deduction, and trial-and-error, leading to a decline in deep thinking. Zhang's "anti-efficiency" practice with his two live-streamed classes is his answer to AI's狂奔: In an algorithm-driven era chasing ultimate efficiency, don't expect AI to fill inner voids. Read books, speak in front of a camera, sweat on a running track, and build connections with real people.

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

Conversation with Charles Zhang: Amidst the AI Frenzy, Why Pursue 'Anti-Efficiency' Content?

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

Zcash's ETF Gilding: How a Privacy Coin Was Packaged by Wall Street into a Compliant Asset

The article traces the decade-long path of Zcash (ZEC), a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, to its potential launch as the first privacy coin spot ETF, with Grayscale's ZCSH filing in August 2026. It argues ZEC's suitability stemmed not from regulatory acceptance of its privacy technology, but from its centralized, institutional structure from inception—a commercial company (ECC) with venture capital backing and a Founder's Reward—making it easier to package than decentralized alternatives. Three key institutions, intertwined in a network, drove the process: Grayscale (owned by DCG, an early ZEC investor), which had held ZEC in a trust since 2017; Coinbase, providing custody, prime brokerage, derivatives, and venture investment; and ZODL, a new for-profit entity formed in 2026 when ECC's core development team split from the non-profit foundation. The major regulatory hurdle was SEC scrutiny (2023-2026) over ZEC's historical structure, which resembled an unregistered investment contract due to automatic block rewards to ECC and the Foundation. This was resolved through governance changes (NU6 upgrade in 2024) that ended direct funding and shifted control to community voting, coinciding with a broader shift in SEC enforcement policy. Notably, the law firm Davis Polk represented both the Zcash Foundation in its SEC defense and Grayscale in the ETF filing. The push is also driven by DCG's dire financial needs amid Genesis bankruptcy lawsuits, seeking high-fee products (the ZEC ETF charges 2.5%). Concurrently, major mining operations by entities like Cypherpunk Technologies (backed by Winklevoss Capital) and DCG's Fortitude Mining expanded, motivated by profitability and aiming to influence the network. The article concludes with irony: to become a compliant ETF asset, ZEC must shed its core privacy feature for the fund's holdings, which will be held in transparent, auditable addresses. Wall Street is not adopting privacy technology but packaging the *concept* of privacy into a tradable, fee-generating financial product. The transformation was not a single master plan but the result of a network of aligned interests capitalizing on regulatory, governance, and market shifts over ten years.

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

Zcash's ETF Gilding: How a Privacy Coin Was Packaged by Wall Street into a Compliant Asset

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

Bitcoin Core Developer Warns That Bitcoin Payments Are Disappearing at 'Bitcoin Beach'

A Bitcoin Core developer, John Atack, who has lived in El Salvador since 2022, shared a concerning anecdote about Bitcoin adoption in the country. While dining at El Zonte, a region known as "Bitcoin Beach," he paid with Bitcoin and was told it was the first such payment the establishment had received in a month. Staff explained Bitcoin payments, once common, have now virtually disappeared, with nearly all customers using cards. An employee even declined a Bitcoin tip, stating she had forgotten how to use her wallet and declaring "It's already dead." Atack emphasized this was a single observation but noted the employee had witnessed the payment evolution over three years. His comments sparked mixed reactions. Some disputed his experience, with one user confirming successful Bitcoin payments in the same area. However, Bitcoin reporter Juan Galt acknowledged an underlying "economic problem," arguing that expecting price appreciation makes using Bitcoin for everyday transactions counterintuitive to economic incentives needed for a circular crypto economy. Despite the concerning report, Atack also reflected that El Salvador remains a global leader in cryptocurrency adoption and progressive legislation, sometimes causing locals to take these advancements for granted. The story highlights the ongoing challenges of mainstream Bitcoin adoption for daily commerce, even in pioneering nations.

cryptonews.ruHace 18 min(s)

Bitcoin Core Developer Warns That Bitcoin Payments Are Disappearing at 'Bitcoin Beach'

cryptonews.ruHace 18 min(s)

A Huge 'Sleeping' Wave of New Bitcoin Buyers Has Not Even Bought Bitcoin Yet

A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, titled "Do You Even Crypto, Bro? Cryptocurrencies in Household Finance," reveals that Bitcoin and other crypto assets are less understood than other financial assets in US households. The primary reasons for not owning crypto are a lack of knowledge and the perception that it is a poor investment. Even among owners, the main motivations are profit-seeking and portfolio diversification rather than an understanding of the underlying technology's benefits, such as independence from banks. The research found that showing respondents Bitcoin's past 12-month performance increased their desired portfolio allocation by about 47%, indicating investment decisions are driven more by recent returns than fundamental comprehension. Crypto gains are often treated like lottery winnings, leading to one-off luxury purchases rather than sustained increases in spending. While non-owners largely view crypto as high-risk, owners are somewhat less likely to do so, though they exhibit greater uncertainty about future returns compared to traditional assets like stocks or gold. This ambiguity about Bitcoin's nature and valuation contributes directly to its price volatility. The study concludes that this volatility will persist, but education efforts combined with price appreciation could convert today's uninformed non-owners into future Bitcoin holders.

cryptonews.ruHace 20 min(s)

A Huge 'Sleeping' Wave of New Bitcoin Buyers Has Not Even Bought Bitcoin Yet

cryptonews.ruHace 20 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片