Chris Giles, writing today for The Financial Times, describes promising signs for recovery starting around the world, looking at manufacturing activity data. He quotes Stuart Green, global economist with HSBC, who said “a spell in the financial wilderness now looks less likely for the major economies . . . with a slowly improving cyclical picture factored in for the rest of 2009 and 2010 across many regions”.
Chris then qualifies his enthusiasm immediately by writing, "But he and policymakers around the world fear that the coming upturn will be neither durable nor strong."
What? Is a recovery a recovery if it is not durable? If it is not durable, doesn't that mean it doesn't last? Is a recovery, that is not a recovery, a recovery anyway?
Am I talking double talk? Most emphatically, yes. And I'm doing it by giving the quotes that Chris has reported. He is an excellent reporter, but the people he is quoting don't seem to have a clue. It is a bunch of 'on one hand, but then on the other'. But then, doesn't that define the economic discussion process? Read the entire article here.