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

marsbitDipublikasikan tanggal 2026-05-08Terakhir diperbarui pada 2026-05-08

Abstrak

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.


Pertanyaan Terkait

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.

Bacaan Terkait

OpenAI Tidak Lagi Mengandalkan Model Termahal untuk Menghasilkan Uang

OpenAI tidak lagi mengandalkan model termahal untuk menghasilkan uang. Pada 30 Juli, perusahaan mengumumkan penyesuaian harga, menurunkan harga model GPT-5.6 Luna sebesar 80% dan Terra sebesar 20%. Yang lebih penting dari angka penurunan harga adalah pesan intinya: untuk banyak tugas, model terkuat (seperti Sol) tidak selalu diperlukan. OpenAI secara eksplisit merekomendasikan strategi di mana model mahal (Sol) menangani perencanaan dan analisis kompleks, sementara model yang lebih terjangkau (Luna) mengeksekusi tugas, menulis kode, dan menjalankan pengujian. Pergeseran ini mencerminkan perubahan industri AI dari hanya mengejar kecerdasan tertinggi menuju optimisasi biaya dan efisiensi untuk penggunaan skala besar. Anthropic juga mengikuti pola serupa dengan meluncurkan Claude Opus 5 dengan harga setengah dari model andalannya, Fable 5. Kedua raksasa Silicon Valley ini menunjukkan bahwa model flagship kini berfungsi lebih untuk nilai merek dan pembuktian teknologi, sementara model "kendaraan massal" yang lebih murah (seperti Luna, Terra, Opus) yang akan mendorong adopsi komersial luas dan menghasilkan pendapatan utama. OpenAI mengungkapkan bahwa penurunan biaya ini sebagian didorong oleh model AI (Sol) yang mengoptimalkan kode produksi dan alur kerjanya sendiri, menciptakan siklus peningkatan efisiensi yang dapat mempercepat penurunan biaya di masa depan. Intinya, kompetisi AI bergeser dari "siapa yang paling pintar" menjadi "mana yang paling bernilai". Perusahaan tidak lagi membeli satu model tunggal, tetapi merancang sistem dengan beberapa model yang cocok untuk tugas yang berbeda—mirip dengan arsitektur komputasi awan. Tujuan akhir OpenAI adalah membangun ekosistem yang mengunci alur kerja pengembang melalui volume panggilan API yang sangat besar dan biaya yang sangat rendah, sehingga menciptakan daya tarik yang kuat. Ketika AI menjadi murah dan tersebar luas seperti listrik, tertanam dalam setiap proses tanpa diperdebatkan, era sesungguhnya baru dimulai.

marsbit7m yang lalu

OpenAI Tidak Lagi Mengandalkan Model Termahal untuk Menghasilkan Uang

marsbit7m yang lalu

Gaji Puluhan Miliar untuk Rebut Tukang Listrik, Meta Buru-buru Buka Sekolah Kejuruan Sendiri

Perlombaan AI kini menghadapi hambatan baru: **kelangkaan tenaga ahli teknik**, terutama tukang listrik. Proyek data center raksasa seperti "Stargate" OpenAI membutuhkan ratusan pekerja konstruksi yang bekerja hingga 7 hari seminggu. Menurut prediksi, AS membutuhkan **130.000 tukang listrik tambahan** hingga 2030, namun puluhan ribu lowongan per tahun tetap tak terisi. Gaji yang ditawarkan sangat tinggi, mencapai **$240.000-$280.000 per tahun** untuk tukang listrik andal. Namun, kelambatan proyek karena kekurangan tenaga kerja bisa menyebabkan kerugian **$14,2 juta per bulan**. Presiden Microsoft menyebut kelangkaan tukang listrik sebagai **hambatan utama** ekspansi data center. Kompleksitas data center AI sangat tinggi karena kebutuhan daya besar (setara puluhan ribu rumah), sistem distribusi listrik rumit, dan tantangan pendinginan yang membutuhkan ahli pipa dan HVAC. Akibatnya, perusahaan seperti Meta dan Alphabet berinvestasi besar dalam pelatihan. Meta mengalokasikan **$115 juta** untuk mendirikan sekolah pelatihan konstruksi, menawarkan program gratis dengan tunjangan hidup. Upaya ini menarik minat generasi Z, dengan lonjakan pendaftaran sekolah kejuruan. Namun, tantangan berlanjut: konsumsi listrik data center AI melonjak **84,2% per tahun**, mendorong harga listrik naik. Selain itu, pekerjaan konstruksi bersifat proyek - setelah data center selesai, ribuan pekerja terlatih harus mencari pekerjaan baru, berpotensi membanjiri sektor lain dan menekan upah. Masa depan pasar tenaga kerja teknik pasca-boom AI masih belum pasti.

marsbit7m yang lalu

Gaji Puluhan Miliar untuk Rebut Tukang Listrik, Meta Buru-buru Buka Sekolah Kejuruan Sendiri

marsbit7m yang lalu

The Fed Harus Naikkan Suku Bunga di September? Bagaimana Tekanannya pada Crypto dan Saham AS?

Pasar telah meningkatkan perkiraan suku bunga Federal Reserve (The Fed) pada September menjadi lebih dari 73%, meningkat pesat dari kurang dari 53% sepekan sebelumnya. Lonjakan ini dipicu oleh perbedaan suara dalam rapat The Fed Juli (9-3) dan kekhawatiran inflasi akibat kenaikan harga minyak, yang didorong oleh ketegangan geopolitik di dekat Selat Hormuz. Kunci penentu berikutnya adalah data CPI bulan Juli pada 12 Agustus. Jika inflasi menunjukkan kenaikan berlanjut, probabilitas kenaikan suku bunga September akan semakin kuat. Untuk aset kripto seperti Bitcoin, ekspektasi kenaikan suku bunga biasanya menekan harga karena meningkatkan biaya peluang memegang aset tidak menghasilkan dan menarik aliran modal ke aset yang lebih aman. Namun, dampaknya mungkin terbatas jika pasar memandang kenaikan ini sebagai akhir dari siklus pengetatan. Saham AS terkait kripto (seperti Coinbase, MicroStrategy) cenderung bereaksi lebih volatil. Kenaikan suku bunga meningkatkan tingkat diskonto dalam valuasi, memberi tekanan lebih besar pada saham pertumbuhan dan teknologi. Hal ini bertepatan dengan musim laporan keuangan dimana investor kini lebih kritis, menilai apakah pengeluaran modal besar-besaran untuk AI dapat benar-benar menghasilkan pendapatan dan arus kas. Perusahaan dengan cerita pertumbuhan lemah dan arus kas negatif mungkin menghadapi volatilitas lebih tinggi jika The Fed benar-benar menaikkan suku bunga.

marsbit18m yang lalu

The Fed Harus Naikkan Suku Bunga di September? Bagaimana Tekanannya pada Crypto dan Saham AS?

marsbit18m yang lalu

Penambang Bitcoin Mulai Menyerah, Tapi Saham Mereka Malah Meroket

Penambang Bitcoin Menyerah, Namun Saham Mereka Melonjak. Hashrate Bitcoin telah menurun selama berbulan-bulan, dan kesulitan penambangan juga baru saja mencatat salah satu penurunan terbesar. Biasanya, ini adalah cerita sederhana: penambang mematikan mesin karena tidak menguntungkan. Namun, kali ini, saham perusahaan penambang publik justru mengalami salah satu performa terkuat dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, sementara harga BTC sendiri tertekan. Setiap penurunan hashrate yang lebih lama dari ini dalam sejarah Bitcoin dapat dihitung dengan jari. Kesulitan penambangan telah turun 19.9% dari puncaknya, salah satu penurunan terdalam sejak dominasi ASIC. Alasan di balik kenaikan saham perusahaan tambang adalah narasi AI. Aset-aset ini kini lebih banyak bergerak seiring dengan sektor AI daripada dengan Bitcoin itu sendiri. Sementara itu, pendapatan penambang dari blok reward (subsidi) dalam denominasi BTC mencapai rekor terendah baru. Subsidi blok berkurang setengah setiap empat tahun, dan logika bahwa kenaikan harga akan mengimbangi pengurangan ini masih bertahan sejauh ini, dengan metrik Puell Multiple saat ini sekitar 0.75. Jawaban jangka panjang selalu adalah biaya transaksi (fee), yang suatu hari nanti harus sepenuhnya mendanai keamanan jaringan. Namun, realitanya masih sangat jauh. Rata-rata harian fee selama 28 hari terakhir bahkan tidak cukup untuk menutupi subsidi satu blok, sementara jaringan menghasilkan sekitar 144 blok per hari. Bentuk "penyerahan diri" penambang kali ini berbeda dari siklus sebelumnya. Penambang telah menemukan penggunaan perangkat keras yang lebih menguntungkan, sementara harga BTC turun, subsidi menyusut, dan pendapatan dari fee stagnan. Masalah yang perlu diselesaikan seringkali baru ditangani secara serius selama pasar bearish.

marsbit18m yang lalu

Penambang Bitcoin Mulai Menyerah, Tapi Saham Mereka Malah Meroket

marsbit18m yang lalu

Trading

Spot
活动图片