Name: 伊朗：供應衝擊！ (Iran: supply shock)
Uploaded: 2026-03-04T17:25:55.000Z
Duration: 21 min 45 s

The war in Iran is raising the risk of a global economic shock.

伊朗的戰事正在提高全球經濟衝擊的風險。

Disruptions to supplies of oil and gas are triggering double digit price increases.

石油和天然氣供應的中斷正在引發兩位數的價格上漲。

That risk reigniting inflation, potentially rattling a global economy that so far has taken multiple shocks in its stride.

這有讓通膨重新燃起的風險，可能會動搖到目前為止已經從容應對多重衝擊的全球經濟。

So what happens if supply disruptions stretch into weeks or even months?

那麼，如果供應中斷持續數週甚至數月會怎樣呢？

What are the economic and political consequences for US President Donald Trump and and the global economy?

對美國總統唐納·川普和全球經濟會有什麼經濟和政治後果？

I'm Carmel Crimmins and this is Reuters Econ World.

我是 Carmel Crimmins，這裡是路透社經濟世界。

Every week we go deep on the economic principles and ideas driving the biggest news around the world.

每週我們都會深入探討驅動全球重大新聞的經濟原則和理念。

For people affected by the conflict right now in the Middle east, there are way more important questions than the price of oil and gas.

對現在中東衝突影響的民眾來說，有比石油和天然氣價格更重要的問題。

They and their loved ones are facing life or death situations.

他們和他們的親人正處於生死關頭。

And in this realm, the big question is whether we're at the early stages of a global economic shock, one capable of triggering a recession.

在這個領域，最大的問題是我們是否正處於全球經濟衝擊的早期階段，一個可能引發衰退的衝擊。

I'm going to tell you right now we can't answer that question.

我現在就要告訴大家，我們無法回答這個問題。

It really depends on how long this conflict lasts.

這真的取決於這場衝突會持續多久。

But we can look at the risk factors and who's the most vulnerable.

但我們可以看看風險因素，以及誰最脆弱。

And for that I'm joined by Dan Burns in New York, our US Economics editor, and

為此，我邀請到紐約的美國經濟編輯 Dan Burns，以及

Mark John in London, our European Economics editor.

So let's lay out the stage for what we're talking about here.

那我們就來鋪陳一下我們要談的主題。

So the Middle east, not just Iran, accounts for around a third of global oil production and nearly 20% of global gas production.

所以中東地區，不只伊朗，就佔了全球石油產量的三分之一，還有將近20%的全球天然氣產量。

And in addition to that, we've got the Strait of Hormuz, which is a strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

除此之外，我們還有荷姆茲海峽，這是波斯灣和阿曼灣之間的一個海峽。

And that handles about 20% of the world's oil and around the same of its natural gas.

而那裡處理了全球約20%的石油和差不多的天然氣。

So that's the biggest energy choke point in the world, meaning if it gets disrupted, we have a problem.

所以那是全球最大的能源瓶頸，意思就是如果它發生中斷，我們就會有問題。

And right now tanker traffic has ground to a halt.

而現在油輪的運輸已經停擺了。

So we're seeing an immediate reaction in energy prices.

所以我們看到了能源價格的立即反應。

Mark, that's a big problem for energy importers, isn't it?

Mark，這對能源進口國來說是個大問題，不是嗎？

I mean, and for Europe, the timing on this is terrible.

我的意思是，對歐洲來說，這個時機糟透了。

there it is with the Trump tariffs to deal with and the Ukraine war.

又面臨川普的關稅和烏克蘭戰爭。

So effectively this kind of adds a potential energy shock on top of all this.

所以這基本上是為所有這些情況又增添了一個潛在的能源衝擊。

And as you say, Europe, it's getting the vast majority of its oil from outside and a large chunk of its gas as well.

而且就像你說的，歐洲大部分的石油都來自國外，天然氣也有很大一部分。

So this is something which over time could be very significant.

所以這件事隨著時間推移可能會非常重要。

Europe but also Asia, I think something like 3/4 of Hormuz shipped oil goes to China, India, Japan and South Korea.

歐洲，還有亞洲，我想大約有四分之三的荷姆茲海峽輸運石油是運往中國、印度、日本和韓國。

So it's a big potential hit for those countries as well.

所以這對那些國家來說也是個潛在的重大衝擊。

We don't know how big, but they do have them.

我們不知道具體有多少，但他們確實有。

India, as far as I understand it, is less well stocked.

據我所知，印度的儲備就沒那麼充足了。

So the longer this goes on, the worse for them.

所以這件事拖得越久，對他們來說就越糟。

Dan, in the US Is the United States sitting kind of pretty here because it's, it's self sufficient in oil, right.

Dan，美國在這裡是不是處於一個比較有利的位置，因為它在石油方面是自給自足的，對吧？

Since the shale revolution and it now actually sells natural gas into Europe?

自從頁巖革命以來，它現在實際上還向歐洲出售天然氣？

Well, it certainly is in a better position than it was.

嗯，肯定比以前的處境好多了。

And the last time there was a real significant potential for regime change in Iran back in 1979.

而上一次伊朗出現真正重大的政權更迭的可能性是在 1979 年。

Then we saw an oil price shock exacerbate existing high inflation and leading to a classic wage price spiral that led to the highest inflation we'd seen really in the post World War II era.

那時候我們看到石油價格衝擊加劇了當時已有的高通膨，並導致了典型的薪資物價螺旋，造成了我們在二戰後時期真正見過最高的通膨。

But the US is as you know, it's much more self sufficient now, but it's not entirely immune.

但你知道的，美國現在自給自足的程度高多了，但也不是完全免疫。

A 10% increase in crude oil prices is going to translate into some increase in pump prices here in the United States.

原油價格上漲 10%，在美國這裡的加油站價格也會跟著上漲。

Some estimates are we could see it bump up by 25 cents a quarter a gallon in the next couple of weeks.

有些估計是說，未來幾週內，每加侖可能會漲個 25 美分。

And that's from a price that had already been near four year lows in the beginning of January.

而且這是在一月初油價已經接近四年來低點的基礎上。

So you mentioned the 1979, like the last big oil shock from this region.

所以你提到了 1979 年，就像是那個地區上次發生的大規模石油衝擊。

1979 actually was the Iranian revolution of that year.

1979 年其實是伊朗在那一年發生了革命。

And that was a massive, that was a massive oil shock.

那是一次巨大的，一次巨大的石油衝擊。

I think, you know, oil prices nearly roughly doubled.

我認為，你知道的，油價差不多翻了一倍。

We had double digit US inflation since then.

從那之後，美國的通膨就出現了兩位數。

The world and the US are a lot less reliant on oil, right?

現在全世界和美國對石油的依賴度已經少很多了，對吧？

I mean US GDP in real terms since 1979 is roughly more than just a little bit more than tripled.

我的意思是，從 1979 年以來，美國的實質 GDP 大約成長了三倍多，不只是一點點。

But our oil consumption is essentially unchanged.

但我們的石油消耗量基本上沒變。

So that share that intensity of oil in the US economy as a contributor and input to US output is much diminished, something like on the order of 70% from what it was in 1979.

所以石油在美國經濟中，作為生產投入的比例和強度已經大大降低了，大約比 1979 年少了 70% 左右。

So that really limits the degree to which this can create the same magnitude of disruption through the same channel that it did in 1979.

所以這真的限制了這次衝突透過相同管道，造成像 1979 年那樣大規模中斷的程度。

And the US and the global economy is also I think helped by the fact that we've actually seen big jumps in supply of oil over the last few years.

而且，我認為美國和全球經濟也受益於過去幾年我們實際上看到石油供應量大幅增加。

In fact, in previous pods we've talked about potentially oversupply.

事實上，在之前的節目裡，我們討論過可能出現供過於求的情況。

But nonetheless if this drags on, if we get into kind of weeks long, months long scenario, if we did see oil hitting $100 a barrel, how dangerous would that be for US and global growth?

但即便如此，如果這場衝突持續下去，如果演變成數週、數月之久，如果油價飆升到每桶 100 美元，那對美國和全球經濟成長有多危險？

It would be a drag and certainly it would be an unwelcome development for inflation, which is something that's already running above the Federal Reserve's target by about a percentage point.

這會是個阻力，而且絕對會是通膨不樂見的發展，通膨目前已經比聯準會的目標高出約一個百分點。

Gasoline over the last couple of months had been a contributor toward weighing on inflation rather than adding to it.

過去幾個月，汽油價格一直是拖累通膨的因素，而不是推升通膨。

So reversing that dynamic in a moment when some other things like services inflation, non housing services inflation, has been a bit worrying for some policymakers.

所以在這種情況下，服務業通膨、非住宅服務業通膨，這些讓一些決策者感到擔憂的因素，其動態出現了逆轉。

So there are already some underlying concerns about costs rising and adding energy on top of that, which has not been a big contributor to that so far, could be problematic.

所以已經有一些關於成本上升的潛在擔憂，再加上能源價格上漲，而能源價格到目前為止並不是主要推升因素，這可能會是個問題。

So looking first of all on the relatively bright side, at least this time around, Europe doesn't have to de risk itself completely from one single energy provider the way it did with Russia a few years ago.

所以首先從相對樂觀的一面來看，至少這一次，歐洲不必像幾年前那樣，完全擺脫單一能源供應商的風險，就像當初對付俄羅斯那樣。

Secondly, we're coming out of a winter, not going into one.

其次，我們正要走出冬天，而不是要進入冬天。

So that's also kind of relatively advantageous.

And the other thing is that Eurozone inflation at the moment is actually below target 1.7%.

還有，目前歐元區的通膨實際上低於 1.7% 的目標。

So from that point of view, there is a little bit of a buffer.

所以從這個角度來看，還有一些緩衝空間。

All of that being said, if this goes on, so the ECB reckons, for example, that 14% increased in the price of oil sustainably.

說了這麼多，如果情況持續下去，像是歐洲央行估計，石油價格可持續上漲 14%。

That's worth about another half percentage point of inflation.

這大約會再增加 0.5 個百分點的通膨。

And it takes off about 0.1% of GDP growth.

if you haven't got much growth in the first place, then I guess every little bit counts.

如果你本來就沒什麼成長，那我想每一點都很重要。

And this is the dilemma, I suppose, for the ECB, is that normally, as with all inflationary things, you'd be looking to potentially increase interest rates to kind of offset that somewhat.

所以這就是歐洲央行的兩難，我想，通常來說，就像所有會引發通膨的事情一樣，你會考慮升息來稍微抵銷一部分。

But it's not going to be very keen to do that with the economy in such a fragile situation, facing the Trump tariffs, facing everything else as things stand.

但經濟狀況這麼脆弱，還要面對川普的關稅，以及現況下的一切，歐洲央行不太可能樂意這麼做。

So that does set up something of a dilemma for the ecb.

所以這確實給歐洲央行造成了一些兩難。

I mean, in terms of the inflation picture, back in 1979, what happened was stagflation, which of course is a nightmare scenario for economies, Right?

也就是說，就通膨來看，回到 1979 年，發生了停滯性通膨，這對經濟體來說當然是個惡夢，對吧？

You've got stagnating growth, rising inflation, rising unemployment, and kind of the cure for one affects the other.

經濟成長停滯、通膨上漲、失業率上升，而解決其中一個問題的方法卻會影響到另一個。

So if you ramp up interest rates to tackle the inflation, that's going to hurt job growth.

所以如果你為了抑制通膨而大幅升息，那就會傷害到就業成長。

We're in a very different situation now in the US and in Europe.

我們現在在美國和歐洲的處境非常不同。

字幕列表影片播放

伊朗：供應衝擊！ (Iran: supply shock)

sort

potential

massive

scenario