Newsletter Subscribe
Enter your email address below and subscribe to our newsletter
Before delving into the profound impact of the oil energy market on the global economy, let’s revisit the three major oil crisis of 1973, 1979, and 1990 to discuss their profound effects on the global economic and political landscape. History shows the strategic importance of the oil market and how these crisis have spurred nations to diversify their energy sources and reduce dependence on oil.
Since the commercial extraction of oil began in the early 20th century, it has been the lifeblood of the global economy. However, the strategic importance of oil has also made it a focal point of international political disputes, especially during the three major oil crisis of 1973, 1979, and 1990. These crisis not only exposed the world’s extreme dependency on oil, but also demonstrated the profound impact of political turmoil in the Middle East on the global economy.
The 1973 Yom Kippur War triggered the first oil crisis, with OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) imposing an oil embargo against countries supporting Israel. This crisis rapidly led to a spike in oil prices, causing a global economic recession. This event highlighted the significant impact of international political events on the energy market and underscored the risks of over-reliance on a single source of energy.
The outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 severely disrupted Iranian oil production, leading to the second oil crisis. The shortage of oil supply once again drove up prices and impacted the global economy, further validating the fragility of the energy market and the profound effects of political instability on the economy.
The crisis triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 once again highlighted the global dependency on Middle Eastern oil, as global oil supplies were again threatened. This not only caused oil prices to soar but also sparked concerns over supply security worldwide.
A review of past economic crisis reveals that conflicts in the Middle East often trigger global inflation pressures. However, history also shows the market’s strong ability to adjust itself. In today’s era, although the impact of political instability in the Middle East on the global economy is no longer as intense as before, its influence on oil prices cannot be ignored.
The Federal Reserve currently faces a dilemma: finding the right balance between promoting economic growth and curbing inflation. This requires precise and subtle policy adjustments to respond to the ever-changing economic environment. Given the current complex global economic situation, a cautious approach and close attention to the relationship between oil prices and the stock market are essential. Historical experience teaches us that a deep understanding of the oil market not only helps in predicting and avoiding risks but also in identifying investment opportunities during crisis. In the face of any economic turbulence, patience and in-depth analysis remain the most reliable partners for investors.
On October 6, 1973, coinciding with Yom Kippur, a war erupted that altered the global economic landscape. Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel during its religious day of rest, known as the Yom Kippur War. This conflict directly led to the First Oil Shock. Its effects quickly rippled through global stock markets, particularly impacting the U.S. market profoundly.
The roots of the Yom Kippur War trace back to the Six-Day War in 1967. In this brief military campaign, Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, seizing control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Golan Heights. The loss of these territories was not only a significant territorial defeat for the Arab states but also a deep psychological and political blow. Particularly, Egypt’s loss of the Sinai Peninsula and Syria’s Golan Heights held significant strategic and nationalist value for these nations.
In the subsequent years, these tensions escalated political instability in the Middle East, setting the stage for the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War. Egypt and Syria, aiming to reclaim the territories lost in the 1967 war and restore national dignity, as well as to shift the regional power balance, planned a surprise assault on Israel.
Thus, the coordinated offensive by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur in 1973 was not just a military attack but a collective act of defiance against past humiliations, seeking to reshape the power dynamics in the Middle East through force.
In the initial stages of the war, Egypt and Syria made several advancements, but soon, with strong support from the United States, the Israeli forces turned the tide. To retaliate against the Western nations supporting Israel, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), including Saudi Arabia, demonstrated unprecedented unity and used oil as a political weapon for the first time, initiating an oil embargo against the Western countries.
Given that the Middle East accounted for about 60% of the world’s oil production capacity at the time, and the United States was still a net importer of oil, the decision to implement the oil embargo caused crude oil prices to skyrocket from around $3 to $13, a staggering 333% increase.
Global stock markets were severely impacted, with the U.S. S&P 500 Index plummeting from a 1973 high of 120 points to a low of 62 points in 1974, nearly a 50% drop. The turmoil in major stock markets around the world reflected a crucial fact: international financial markets were highly globalized, and any regional political conflict or economic turmoil could quickly ripple through the global economic system.
The complexity of the conflict intensified when British radar detected frequent Soviet aircraft incursions into Egyptian and Syrian airspace. Western countries, worried about a possible direct confrontation between the U.S. and Soviet Union in the Cold War standoff, added to the tension.
The prevailing economic policy at the time was Keynesianism, which advocated stimulating economic growth through government spending and fiscal stimulus. However, when facing inflation caused by supply-side issues, i.e., shortages leading to price increases, traditional Keynesian measures—increasing aggregate demand—were ineffective. In such scenarios, even with increased demand, actual output of goods and services could not increase due to supply constraints, potentially leading to further price level rises.
This supply-side crisis, where supply contraction drove up prices, led to what is known as stagflation—economic growth slowing while prices rise. Stagflation posed a tricky problem as it challenged the traditional Keynesian policy approaches to solving economic recession and inflation. This situation prompted policymakers to reconsider and adjust economic strategies, focusing more on supply-side reforms and monetary policy adjustments.
In this historical turmoil, we witnessed the close interweaving of politics and economics. The lessons investors learned during such periods are still valuable today—that is the inseparable relationship between market dynamics and geopolitics, and its profound implications for our investment portfolios.
The end of the Yom Kippur War marked a de-escalation of tense relations, but this was a gradual process. The 1974 ceasefire laid the groundwork for subsequent peace, culminating in the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. This treaty not only ended three decades of hostility between the two nations but also symbolized a significant turning point amidst the backdrop of the Cold War.
The concept of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) quickly took shape after the 1973 oil crisis, revealing the risk of the U.S.’s overreliance on foreign oil supplies. With soaring oil prices and supply disruptions causing significant impacts on the U.S. economy, the government recognized the need for a buffer mechanism to cope with potential future supply disruptions. Thus, as part of a long-term national energy security strategy, the SPR was formally established under the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
While exploring this complex history, we learn how the interdependency of economics and politics manifests on the global stage. For instance, wars and peace processes directly affected energy prices and global financial markets, which in turn influenced investor behavior and decision-making. The 1970s oil crisis is a paradigm, showcasing how the situation in the Middle East rapidly altered the global economic landscape.
Investors learned that understanding and monitoring geopolitical dynamics are vital for portfolio management. Markets often react swiftly to political uncertainties, and investors must possess the sensitivity and ability to adjust strategies timely to cope with these changes.
In tracing the trajectory of modern economic upheavals, the Second Oil Shock between 1978 and 1980 stands as an indispensable chapter. The economic turbulence of this period was triggered by intense political upheaval on the distant lands of Iran, known as the Iranian Revolution.
Iran, situated in the Middle East and a key oil-exporting nation, played a pivotal role in global energy supply, accounting for about 6% of the world’s oil production.
Political unrest in 1978 led to massive strikes by Iranian oil workers, severely disrupting Iran’s oil production. Iran’s daily oil output plummeted from about 6 million barrels in 1978 to approximately 3 million barrels in 1979, a reduction of about 50%. This production halt created a crisis of supply shortages on a global scale, significantly impacting economies reliant on oil, especially Western industrialized nations. Oil prices consequently surged, although the initial increase was not as steep as anticipated. The market initially perceived this as a temporary impact of a localized conflict.
However, it was in 1979 that a dramatic surge in oil prices truly manifested. In that year, Iranian students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 63 American hostages for 444 days in what became known as the Iran Hostage Crisis. U.S. President Jimmy Carter responded significantly, including ordering a blockade of Iranian oil exports, further exacerbating the already fragile global energy supply situation following the 1973 Oil Crisis. More importantly, this crisis deepened market concerns about political instability in the Middle East, thereby exerting long-term upward pressure on oil prices.
This hostage crisis and political standoff not only changed the dynamics of international relations but also heightened global awareness of energy security. This period of history was later depicted in Hollywood through the film “Argo,” directed and starred by Ben Affleck, recounting the story of this tumultuous time.
During the second oil crisis, crude oil prices experienced significant fluctuations. The rapid rise in oil prices from about $13 to $41, an increase of an astonishing 215%, had a profound impact on the global economy, especially on oil-sensitive industrialized countries. To counter the energy crisis, nations began hoarding oil, leading to a massive imbalance in market supply and demand.
The U.S. government, in particular, played a pivotal role in this crisis. Following the first oil crisis, the U.S. had begun establishing the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The establishment of this system was based on the oil price fluctuations at the time, which had led to a dire situation of military vehicles running out of fuel, creating a significant loophole in national security. Amidst the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution, the Carter administration chose to expand the oil reserve to ensure national security needs.
This strategy of preparing for the future caused a short-term surge in global oil demand, ultimately leading to a significant price increase. At that time, the actual impact on oil production was not as severe as anticipated, but market sentiment drove a dramatic change in the supply-demand relationship.
Another consequence of this oil price surge on the economy was intensified inflation. As energy costs soared, so did production and transportation costs, which were ultimately passed on to consumers, leading to widespread price increases. Additionally, many countries adopted austere fiscal and monetary policies to combat this inflationary pressure. These policies included raising interest rates and reducing government spending, aiming to lower liquidity in the economy to control price hikes.
However, these measures also hindered economic growth, and the stock market was affected by oil price volatility and inflationary pressures, showing a downward trend from late 1977 to the end of 1978. Although the decline in the stock market was not as severe as during the first oil crisis, since the 1970s, the market had not shown a long-term stable upward trend.
The 1979 oil crisis not only caused global inflation and stock market fluctuations but also had profound effects on the global economic structure. Firstly, it prompted many energy-importing nations to focus on diversifying their energy sources, reducing dependence on a single source, especially oil. These countries began seeking alternative energy sources, including investments in renewable energies like wind and solar, to ensure the stability and sustainability of energy supply.
On the other hand, oil-exporting countries experienced rapid economic growth due to the rise in oil prices. This led to significant increases in their fiscal revenues, prompting them to seek diversification of their economies to avoid over-reliance on a single resource. These countries began investing in different economic sectors, such as tourism, financial services, and later, technological innovation, thereby making their economic structures more diverse and robust.
This crisis highlighted the interdependence of the global economy and the close connection between economic policies and the energy market. In the long run, it had a significant impact on the restructuring of the global economy, effects that continue to shape the course of the world economy today.
In these chaotic historical moments, we see the astonishing dependency of the global economy on oil, a vulnerability created by reliance on a single energy source. The 1979 oil crisis not only exposed the weaknesses of global supply chains but also highlighted the risks of over-dependence on a single energy source. With the dramatic fluctuations in oil prices, economies worldwide were significantly impacted, further emphasizing the importance of energy diversification. Since then, diversifying energy supplies and exploring renewable energies have become critical issues globally. This is not only crucial for economic security but also key to achieving sustainable development.
In today’s world, as climate change becomes increasingly severe and the demand for clean energy grows, investing in alternative energy sources and enhancing energy efficiency becomes even more crucial. This crisis taught us a valuable lesson: actively transitioning to a more diversified, sustainable energy system is key to reducing dependence on a single source and strengthening the economy’s resilience against future shocks.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait, sending shockwaves through the global oil market. Prior to this crisis, in early 1990, crude oil prices hovered around $18. As the conflict escalated, fears of potential supply disruptions caused oil prices to soar, reaching around $35 in just a few weeks. This volatility reflected the oil market’s swift reaction to political events, influenced by OPEC’s production decisions, global oil supply and demand, and geopolitical factors.
The reasons behind Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait were multifaceted. Iraq accused Kuwait of overproducing oil, leading to a drop in international oil prices and severely harming Iraq’s oil-dependent economy. It further alleged that Kuwait was stealing oil from its fields, although these accusations were not widely recognized in the international community.
Beyond oil-related disputes, Iraq aimed to alleviate its financial woes by erasing approximately $14 billion in debt through the invasion and sought to control Kuwait’s rich oil resources to enhance its political and economic status in the Middle East.
This unexpected military action quickly caused international oil prices to spike, reflecting not only concerns about supply disruption but also market fears of a prolonged conflict.
During this period, global markets once again faced the challenge of surging oil prices. The market response was immediate – panic buying and hoarding exacerbated the economic burden of rising oil prices. The U.S. stock market endured a drop of about 20% in the short term, contributing to the early 1990s recession. Nonetheless, the U.S. market demonstrated its resilience, rebounding quickly after the initial decline and re-entering a bull market.
The third oil shock did not have a profound impact on the global economy, for several key reasons:
The U.S. government took a key measure during this crisis by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to alleviate market supply shortages. This action aimed to stabilize oil prices and mitigate the negative economic impacts of supply disruptions. Typically, the use of the SPR is considered an extreme measure for severe oil supply shortages.
In the short term, releasing the SPR can quickly supplement the market’s crude oil supply, especially in cases of shortages due to political turmoil or other unforeseen events. This move effectively mitigates severe fluctuations in crude oil prices and eases the economic pressure on energy-intensive industries and consumers. Additionally, this proactive government intervention boosts market participant confidence, helping to prevent panic buying and excessive hoarding behaviors.
From a long-term perspective, frequent use of the SPR may have complex implications. Excessive or improper release could weaken the government’s ability to respond to future crisis. Moreover, replenishing the SPR requires time and financial resources, which can be particularly challenging in tight global supply conditions. Therefore, while the SPR is an effective short-term response tool, its use must be carefully considered to ensure long-term energy security and economic stability.
As time progresses, with the global economy’s reduced dependence on oil and the emergence of more coping strategies, the future trajectory of the oil market seems less likely to have as profound an impact on the stock market as in the past. For investors, this signifies a more mature and flexible market environment.
Delving into the current trends of the global oil market, it’s evident that a new ecological balance is emerging in the crude oil market. Compared to the past, the global economy’s dependence on oil is gradually decreasing, meaning that oil price volatility’s impact on the U.S. and global economies is weakening.
The recent rise in crude oil prices is not solely driven by geopolitical turmoil. In fact, we have witnessed a continuous climb in oil prices over the past few quarters, largely influenced by the long-term production cut strategy in the Middle East. A key indicator to watch is the trend in U.S. crude oil production, which is expected to exert some downward pressure on oil prices. However, it’s noteworthy that while production cuts in the Middle East are ongoing, their influence on the global energy market may be diminishing.
Past oil crises have shown that supply chain conflicts and tensions in the Middle East are having a decreasing impact on the global stock market. Although this does not imply a rapid fall in oil prices, under the current high inflation backdrop, the downward price movement might be more gradual. For savvy investors, each significant price drop could present an entry opportunity.
In the market, observing changes in the proportion of funds is crucial. The relative quietness of the stock market since last October has led to increased liquidity, and investors’ cash levels have risen accordingly. Investors have already bought into stocks with reasonable valuations. To buy cheaper stocks or those with price correction opportunities often requires some unfavorable news to brew.
For instance, in the past, when news indicated that Apple Inc. might reduce iPhone production due to supply chain issues, the stock price would decline. Such scenarios provide opportunities for investors wanting to purchase Apple stocks at lower prices. Similarly, when the oil market faces similar unfavorable news, investors should pay attention, as it might offer entry opportunities for keen investors.
With the current upward trend in economic earnings per share (EPS), the market is showing a stable growth trajectory. Investors should pay attention to the price deviation points in the market and wait patiently for buying opportunities. After all, the market always has its self-correcting mechanisms, which can be leveraged by alert investors.
In summary, although the correlation between changes in the oil market and the stock market is weakening, it still requires close monitoring. This is both a challenge and an opportunity – investors should approach this variable-rich global market with an open mind and ample knowledge.
Related Articles:
Exploring the World of Economics through Fundamental Human Constraints