 
|
Signature Sponsor
August 7, 2026 - Oil markets have delivered an unexpected signal amid the latest disruption surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. Despite conditions that might ordinarily send crude prices sharply higher, the increase has been relatively restrained. Historically, geopolitical threats to major oil-producing and shipping regions have produced much larger price movements, particularly when past prices are considered in inflation-adjusted terms.
One possible explanation is that the global economy simply cannot tolerate significantly more expensive energy.
Rather than indicating an abundance of energy, relatively weak prices may reflect an affordability problem. Consumers facing pressure on household budgets have less capacity to purchase fuel, vehicles, homes and other energy-intensive goods. If that weakness spreads across the economy, history suggests the consequences could extend well beyond oil markets.
Energy affordability and economic growth
Strong energy demand generally accompanies periods when living standards are improving. Rising incomes allow more households to purchase vehicles, travel, buy homes and consume additional goods and services. Developing economies can industrialize more rapidly, while businesses have greater incentive to expand production.
Much of the postwar period illustrates this relationship. Rapid economic expansion during the 1950s through the 1970s coincided with strong growth in energy consumption.
Today's environment looks considerably different.
Many younger workers struggle to secure jobs that provide enough income to comfortably purchase homes or new vehicles. Housing affordability has deteriorated substantially, while major purchases consume a larger portion of household income.
Global automobile sales provide one indication of this shift. Sales reached a high point in 2017 and have struggled to regain that momentum. The growing share of electric vehicles also means that weaker automobile demand can translate into additional pressure on petroleum consumption.
Housing tells a similar story. U.S. new-home sales reached approximately 1.28 million in 2005. By 2025, sales totaled about 678,000 — barely more than half the earlier peak.
Income distribution may be another important piece of the puzzle. During much of the mid-20th century, income growth was broadly distributed and often kept pace with or exceeded inflation. In more recent decades, a much larger share of income gains has flowed toward higher earners.
That matters for commodity markets.
Extremely wealthy households do not increase their consumption of gasoline, food and other basic commodities in proportion to their wealth. Broad-based purchasing power among middle- and lower-income households is therefore especially important for maintaining strong demand for energy and raw materials.
What two centuries of energy consumption may tell us
Looking at global energy consumption since the early 19th century reveals a notable historical pattern. Periods characterized by rapid growth in energy use have often coincided with improving living standards and economic expansion.
Periods of sluggish or declining energy growth, meanwhile, have frequently overlapped with financial crises, geopolitical upheaval and political instability.
One way of examining this relationship is to separate growth in energy consumption into two components: the portion required to support population growth and the additional energy potentially available to support higher living standards.
When energy consumption grows significantly faster than population, more energy is effectively available per person to support transportation, manufacturing, housing and other economic activities. When population and energy consumption grow at similar rates — or energy consumption falls behind — improving living standards becomes considerably more difficult.
The rapid expansion of the 1960s offers an example of the first situation. Energy consumption increased quickly as the United States expanded interstate highways, pipelines and other infrastructure.
China later produced another dramatic example. Following its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, the country underwent an enormous industrial expansion supported heavily by rapidly increasing coal production. China's growth contributed significantly to global demand for commodities and helped support higher energy prices.
More recently, coal production received another boost beginning around 2022 as global energy markets were disrupted following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That expansion has since moderated, with global coal production showing considerably less growth after 2023.
When energy growth stalls
History also contains periods in which weak growth in energy availability coincided with severe economic stress.
The Panic of 1857 preceded the U.S. Civil War and followed a period of economic expansion supported by substantial borrowing. When that expansion faltered, debt became increasingly difficult to service and financial problems spread through the economy.
The period stretching roughly from 1920 through 1940 provides an even more dramatic example. It encompassed the Great Depression, severe commodity-price weakness and eventually World War II.
Coal-producing regions were facing their own challenges during this era. As easily accessible deposits were depleted, extraction became increasingly expensive. Producers struggled to raise selling prices sufficiently to offset those higher costs, putting pressure on mining wages and contributing to labor disputes.
Another period of unusually weak energy growth occurred during the 1990s.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union dramatically reduced industrial activity across large parts of Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Factories closed, economic output contracted and consumption of oil and other fuels declined substantially.
That loss of demand contributed to relatively weak oil prices during much of the decade. Other major financial disruptions followed, including Japan's prolonged property downturn and the Asian financial crisis of 1997.
These historical episodes do not prove that low energy growth automatically causes economic crises. They do, however, illustrate how closely energy consumption, industrial activity, purchasing power and financial stability can interact.
The economy as an energy-dependent system
Another way to understand this relationship is to view an economy as a complex system requiring a continuous flow of energy.
Modern infrastructure was constructed around specific combinations of oil, natural gas, coal, electricity and other energy sources. Transportation networks, factories, agriculture and supply chains cannot operate effectively without adequate energy delivered in forms compatible with that infrastructure.
Complex systems can also adapt after disruptions.
Businesses fail and are replaced. Governments change. Industries reorganize around different technologies and resources. Economies can therefore recover from severe shocks, although the resulting system may look very different from the one that existed beforehand.
History shows that this adjustment process can be painful and prolonged.
Higher shipping costs add another strain
Current geopolitical disruptions introduce another complication: transportation.
When tankers and cargo vessels must avoid established shipping routes, journeys become longer and more expensive. That raises the cost of moving oil, agricultural products and other commodities around the world.
The problem is that consumers do not automatically gain additional income simply because transportation becomes more expensive.
If households are already near the limit of what they can afford to pay, producers may be forced to absorb some of those additional expenses through lower margins. Oil producers could receive less for their crude after transportation costs, while farmers could experience similar pressure on the net price received for their products.
Longer journeys also consume additional fuel. That means more petroleum is devoted simply to transporting existing supplies, leaving less available for aviation, agriculture, manufacturing and other productive uses.
Should economic activity weaken significantly, oil prices could fall rather than rise. Similar demand-driven price collapses occurred during the 2008 financial crisis and the economic shutdowns of 2020.
The greater concern would be a prolonged downturn in which prices remain too low for producers while still being burdensome for financially stretched consumers.
Housing, agriculture and debt could come under pressure
Weak purchasing power could eventually spread into asset markets.
Housing may be particularly vulnerable. U.S. asking prices have shown signs of losing momentum, and affordability remains challenging because of the combination of elevated home values and borrowing costs.
Agricultural property could face pressure as well if farmers struggle to generate sufficient income from their operations.
Falling property values become especially dangerous when large amounts of debt are attached to those assets. Borrowers may find themselves owing more than their properties are worth, while lenders become increasingly exposed to losses.
Other areas of the financial system could encounter similar problems.
Commercial real estate continues to carry substantial debt even as some properties struggle with lower occupancy and changing workplace patterns. Meanwhile, enormous amounts of capital are flowing into artificial intelligence infrastructure, raising questions about whether every investment will ultimately generate returns sufficient to justify its cost.
If several highly leveraged sectors weaken simultaneously, banks could become more cautious about lending. Reduced credit availability would make it harder for households and businesses to finance purchases and investment, potentially producing additional layoffs and further weakening demand.
That creates a dangerous feedback loop: weaker purchasing power reduces consumption, lower consumption hurts businesses, declining business activity produces job losses, and those job losses weaken purchasing power even further.
Political consequences could follow economic ones
Severe financial stress can eventually affect governments as well.
History demonstrates that heavily indebted political systems can be forced to restructure when revenues can no longer support existing obligations. In extreme circumstances, central governments can fail or political boundaries can change.
The Soviet collapse demonstrated how dramatically such an event can reduce energy consumption. Industrial production declined sharply across affected regions, causing demand for numerous fuels to fall.
A future restructuring would not necessarily resemble the Soviet experience. But governments facing unsustainable debt could eventually be forced to reduce staffing, public services or retirement commitments.
Economies can adapt — but the process may take years
None of this means economic decline must continue indefinitely.
Economic systems have repeatedly reorganized after wars, financial crises and political upheaval. New businesses emerge from failed industries, technologies improve and existing materials and infrastructure are repurposed.
Periods of scarcity can also encourage greater efficiency.
When resources become expensive or difficult to obtain, businesses have a powerful incentive to find ways to produce more economic value from each unit of energy. Over time, that could allow economies to operate successfully with slower growth in overall energy consumption.
The difficulty is getting from one system to the next.
If today's subdued energy demand primarily reflects weakening affordability rather than abundant supply, the muted response in oil prices could be more important than it initially appears. It may indicate that consumers and businesses are already struggling to accommodate higher costs.
History suggests that periods of weak energy growth can coincide with significant economic and financial adjustments. Whether the current environment develops into another such period remains uncertain.
But if energy consumption begins contracting while debt burdens remain high, the consequences could reach far beyond the oil market — affecting property values, employment, lending, government finances and ultimately the structure of the global economy itself.
|
|