A good rule for a forward-thinking executive to observe is never go anywhere -- at least don't walk into any meeting -- without the latest projections or models for the U.S. economy for the year ahead.

How's the U.S. economy likely to perform in the year ahead? Well, here are the summaries of economist David H. Wang's models based on predetermined values for 20 proprietary variables.

Realignment: This forecast assumes a modest $200-400 billion fiscal stimulus, a $70-80 a barrel oil price, record / near-record home mortgage foreclosures, along with efforts to realign U.S. energy policy, and reductions in health care spending accompanying national health care legislation. In this model unemployment rises to 9.5% and the recovery does not begin until Q4 2010. (That's correct: Q4 2010.)

Elongated: This model assumes a modest $200-400 billion fiscal stimulus and a $60 a barrel average oil price, with another year of record / near-record home mortgage foreclosures. Unemployment rises to 9.0%, and the economic recovery does not begin until late Q2 / early Q3 2010.

Steady-state: This model assumes about $500 billion in fiscal stimulus and a $60 a barrel average oil price, among other factors, that limits the recession's depth slightly. Unemployment still rises to 8.0% from the current 6.5%, but the economic recovery begins in early 2010.

One hears the mantra almost daily, often from friends and relatives:

Aren't stocks cheap? Look at those low P/Es! GE is at $15 a share, Intel below $14, Du Pont at about $27. My goodness, the Dow is down to 8,200. Isn't now a good time to buy stocks?

It is, if you believe the Dow is forming a bottom and/or that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us, and the U.S. economy is set to recover.

However, the alternate viewpoint argues that the Dow has not bottomed, could very well fall another 1,000 points, with panic selling (known as 'capitulation' in Wall Street circles) taking the Dow to levels well below that, at least for a short period of time, possibly longer.

Hence, purchasing shares for the first time now (or adding to existing positions) given the latter scenario would create an immediate 10% loss, or possibly more.

Monitor corporate earnings and job growth

What's a better tack to take concerning when to buy more shares? Monitor U.S. corporate earnings and job growth.

Time provides the advantage of not only additional events, but also the ability to the compare these events to conditions and issues in previous eras -- an argument against 'instant-analysis' and a major reason my Ph.D. advisor said, "Don't study any public official's decisions until he or she has been dead for 20 years."

Hence, time is naturally providing more evidence and perspective on the recently-ended period of global economic growth, and increasingly the evidence is showing that it was a global economy of unsustainable imbalances -- balances that policy makers mistakenly ignored.

2001-2007: a policy void

First and probably foremost there was the oil price imbalance. Whether they were driven up by speculators, by institutional investors seeking a return on equity, global energy demand, and/or by other factors, economists had warned for years that the U.S. and global economies could not continue to grow at adequate rates with oil above $80 per barrel. In fact, every previous oil shock in the modern era was followed by a recession in the United States. Still, little was done from a policy standpoint to stem oil's price rise.

Similarly, the U.S.'s then-increasing trade deficit, a good part of which had been fed by purchases of imported oil, and the notion that U.S. consumers could serve perpetually as the growth engine of the export-oriented developing world, was unsustainable, given stagnant U.S. incomes, and its nadir savings rate. Yet little was done to address this imbalance.

Non-farm private employment decreased a whopping 157,000 in October on a seasonally-adjusted basis, ADP announced Wednesday in the ADP National Employment Report (pdf).

Meanwhile, the September estimated change in employment was revised to a decrease of 26,000 from the previously announced decrease of 8,000 jobs, ADP said.

Manufacturing employment fell 85,000 in October -- its 26th consecutive monthly decline. Meanwhile, the service sector of the economy lost 31,000 jobs, the first monthly job loss in the service sector since November 2002.

Economist Richard Felson said the October ADP private sector report offered little good news for the U.S economy.

"It is a large monthly job loss, and even more distressing was the job loss total in the service sector," Dawson said. "Up until now the service sector was creating jobs, helping to prop up the economy. The fact that services lost jobs in a month for the first time in six years is a bad sign for the economy because it removes one of the few remaining bright spots in the job market. Job market conditions have worsened and we're likely to continue to see 100,000-plus job loss months for awhile, I'm afraid."

If you're an economist, like David H. Wang, you wake up some days muttering, "What has happened to the industrial base in the U.S. economy?"

The auto companies are practically on life support, and other sectors are paring-back operations, even as international competition mounts. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. How did this happen? Eight more years of industrial base decline without a viable plan to counteract it? And now, as a result of the financial crisis and de-leveraging, the prospect of a period of less-available credit threatens to delay economic recovery.

Well one remedy for the above, Wang argues, is to invest in the industrial sector via investing in the United States' infrastructure. And what's one project worthy of consideration? Investor T. Boone Pickens' plan to substantially increase domestic wind power via his Pickens Plan, Wang argued.

Pickens' investment fund has fallen on tough times, as of late. His BP Capital investment fund has shrunk by 60%, due to energy sector losses, and will drop to about $500 million after redemptions, by week's end, Pickens told CNBC Thursday. Pickens, who sees oil sector consolidation, expects the price of oil to recover to $100 per barrel in 2009. Oil Thursday closed down $1.81 to $65.69 per barrel.

Pickens Plan: a better investment than AIG?

Wang is less certain about a $100 oil price in 2009, but he is certain about the merit and benefits from investing in Pickens' project, and his argument is compelling. (Wang added that he does not have an investment stake in any power/energy company.)

In this market, it bears repeating that a great deal can change in a short time.

That's why from an investor standpoint, the Dow's level really doesn't count until 4 p.m. ET.

Of course, traders will quickly point out that intra-day and hourly overbought/oversold indicators certainly count, and if you're in that category of market participants who trade daily with success, congrats.

But for the bulk of investors/readers a longer time horizon is relevant, and that's why it's not prudent to read too much into the Dow's level before the 4 p.m. close.

With the VIX, the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index (NYSE: $VIX.X), the benchmark index for U.S. stock options, at record highs, the stock market is displaying near-unprecedented volatility - - or wild gyrations characteristic of periods permeated with fear, uncertainty, and announcements events that change economic forecasts, almost daily.

Typically trading between 15-30, the VIX has been above 40 for about a month, and has traded above 80! On Thursday at 11 a.m., the VIX was at 66.38, down 3.58.

And the VIX's expression in Dow terms? That's right: massive swings in the Dow -- 500-point reversal moves intra-day, 700-point up days followed by 800-point down days, other wild swings, 5% up days in a 10% down month, and of course, the old ulcer-generator -- massive selling at 3 p.m. ET.

Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum gently reminds us that not every tax cut achieves its intended effect.

Case study: The 2001 Bush Administration federal income tax cut, which included a cut in the marginal tax rate to 35% from 39.6%. The Bush Administration touted it as a tax cut that would increase incentives to invest, save and work.

The result? The tax cut didn't work: saving and investment have been "anemic" during the Bush years, Baum said, citing data provided by Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust Corp. in Chicago. Business investment is down, the savings rate is at a post-World War II low. Further, the labor participation rate has declined.

No guarantee tax cut would be invested in U.S.

But why didn't cutting the top marginal rate do all of the good things the Bush Administration touted? Economist Peter Dawson said the reason is the tax cut's inherent flaw.

"The tax cut contained the mistaken belief that rich taxpayers would invest their money and invest in the right way, in the U.S., to increase GDP," Dawson said. "There was no guarantee that they would do that. Someone who is rich could invest the money in Brazil or India, with little benefit for the United States."

Political science empirical research teaches us that when U.S. unemployment is rising and job losses occur over many months, the political party in charge of the White House will have a difficult presidential election. (See: The American Voter, by Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes.)

Federal statisticians will release one more jobs report, the September jobs report in October, but to-date the trend is not one of U.S. economic health.

The U.S. Labor Department announced Friday that the U.S. economy lost another 84,000 jobs in August, with the unemployment rising to 6.1% - - a five-year high.

The U.S. economy has now lost 605,000 jobs in 2008 after creating just 1.1 million in 2007. Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Friday the U.S. economy is not growing.

'U.S. economy headed in wrong direction'

"The U.S. economy is in recession. We don't have to wait for two-quarter date to confirm it. These are very bad numbers and the economy is headed in the wrong direction," Wang said. "Electioneering attempts aside, the U.S. economy is, objectively, in bad shape and anyone who fails to see this fails to recognize reality."

With a home near the capital of the world, decades ago the parents of yours truly were able to locate and purchase the best and most effective books for their children during their grade school development years.

Dad usually chose books that emphasized cognitive development, while Mom emphasized books and exercises that stimulated creativity, and that had happy endings.

To be sure, Morgan Stanley economist Stephen Roach's macroeconomic reports would not have met Mom's requirement for happy endings.

Roach's post-bubble world

Roach, who now also serves as Morgan Stanley's (NYSE: MS) Asia Chairman, takes the pulse of the U.S. and global economies, the housing slump, the credit crisis, and the financial system, in his most recent report. (pdf)

And, consistent with Roach's reputation for sobering analysis, his economic forecast for the quarters and years ahead is not pleasant, and it differs markedly from the current consensus in financial circles.

That current consensus argues that the U.S. Federal Reserve's recently-established liquidity facilities, combined with the U.S. Treasury's back-up measures, will enable banks and others with bad mortgages and bad mortgage-backed bonds to muddle-through, slowly working-off these debts as revenues increase as the U.S. economy recovers. Likewise, the U.S. housing sector and consumer demand also will recover, as home prices stabilize and consumption returns to more-normal levels as U.S. GDP increases. It's a sort of 'end to the banking and housing crises by a growing U.S. economy better-able to service those bad debts' argument.

Oil declines by $30 from record highs. Other commodity prices moderate. The dollar rallies. The nation records better-than-expected GDP growth in Q2.

All are positive data points that suggest that the U.S. economy, while it's certainly not in the midst of robust growth, has not run totally into a ditch, either.

What do the latest economic data points mean for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and U.S. stocks, in general, for the next six to nine months? Here's the bullish and bearish cases:

Bullish case: Technical analysts would cite the Dow's close above the 50-day moving average for three consecutive days, the fact that the Dow held support at the 11,000 level, and a series of higher closing highs and higher closing lows in the past two months.

Further, technical analysts would also cite the fact that the Dow has completed the volume-light June-July-August summer season (typically bearish for stocks) during a period of anemic growth (if the U.S. economy isn't already in a recession), without plunging to nerve-wracking lows. True, the Dow fell from about 12,400 in June to 11,000 in July, but technicians would cite the aforementioned positive technicals as an argument that a bottom is in place.

Bearish case: Technical analysts would cite the fact that the Dow, although above the 50-day moving average, nevertheless remains below the 200-day moving average -- the toughest moving average line to break in trading. Also, market 'up days' have lacked sustained buying strength as measured by the MACD Histogram.

Further, and equally important, Dow bears would say that although the Dow has risen from its 11,000 low, the roughly 600-point increase is still well within the range of a correction -- or in this case short-covering -- in a long-term bearish trend. In other words, the Dow's recent rise could be Pyrrhic or false -- a classic example of a 'dead cat bounce.'

Market Analysis: With all due respect to technical analysts and their indicators, the view here argues that investors/ traders should take their cue from the U.S. economy's fundamentals: specifically, corporate profits and job growth. Absent substantial, sustained gains in each, any Dow rally is viewed with skepticism.


**

What's your view of the Dow? Is this stock market rally real? Or is it temporary? Let us know what you think.

The U.S. economic slowdown is likely to extend into 2009, as the nation's longest expansion in consumer spending subsides, economists in a new Bloomberg News survey predicted.

Further, economists surveyed expect the world's largest economy to grow at a 0.7% annualized rate in Q3 and Q4, or about one-half the GDP of the first-half of 2008. The survey of 50 economists was conducted August 1-8.

Economist Glen Langan, who did not participate in the Bloomberg News survey, said Monday he's watching the export segment for signs of further slowing. "Up to now, U.S. export activity has been able to keep U.S. GDP positive. But if exports slow in conjunction with the housing slump and a pull-back in consumer spending, the next 12 months could see additional slowing," Langan said. "An already clouded economic picture could become more stormy."

Keep an eye on U.S. export data, Asia GDP

Langan added that tell-tale signs of slowing exports will be Q3 GDP from emerging market economies, particularly in Asia. Economists and investors/traders will also receive a snapshot of June export data when the U.S. Commerce Department releases U.S. trade balance data Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. EDT.

It's a job report that's not likely to encourage stock market bulls.

That's how one economist and market watcher characterized Wednesday's release of the July ADP National Employment report, which showed an increase of just 9,000 jobs. (Revised ADP payroll data for June indicated a loss of 77,000 jobs.)

Further, although the ADP report is a sample of private sector companies and not a comprehensive survey, economists scrutinize it to detect clues about the labor market. And right now, those clues suggest continued weak employment conditions amid the slowest economy in five years, says economist Glen Langan.

"Although we saw a slight lessening of job layoffs in the hard-hit construction sector, we're still seeing job losses in that category," Langan said. "The rest of the report can be characterized as tepid. Tepid may sound like an improvement or a positive, but it's not, because the U.S. economy has to create about 100,000-125,000 jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth, with new adults entering the workforce. We're no where near that pace in 2008, which is a big negative for the [U.S.] economy."

In fact, Langan said the U.S. economy has shed an average of 94,000 jobs per month for the first six months of 2008. Further, July's ADP report does not bode well for the July non-farm payroll data report, scheduled to be released by the U.S. Department of Labor Friday, August 1 at 8:30 a.m. EDT. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News expected that report to show a loss of 72,000 jobs in July.

Initial U.S. jobless claims decreased 58,000 to 346,000 for the week ended July 5, the U.S. Labor Department announced Thursday. Claims for the previous week were unrevised at 404,000.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected this week's initial jobless claims to total 399,000.

Also, the four-week moving average decreased 10,000 to 390,500. Economists view the four-week average as a better indicator of unemployment conditions, as it smooths-out anomalies for strikes, holidays, or other idiosyncratic events.

Economist Peter Dawson said investors / traders should not react too favorably to this week's jobless claims picture. "It is a surprisingly good number, but keep in mind it's just one week," Dawson said. "Also, continuing claims are still rising and have been trending higher for more than six months. That stat is more indicative of the soft job conditions the U.S. is currently experiencing."

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) columnist and economist Paul Krugman, author of The Conscience of a Liberal, would never be confused with a loyal backer of the economic policies of President Bush.

Still, Krugman, in the academic tradition that argues that a scholar's most important word is "valid," gives President Bush credit where credit is due -- or at least a lack of blame. Krugman says it's true that the U.S. economy is a mess, but it's not true that the bad economy is entirely President Bush's fault.

Krugman outlines the unfortunate reality regarding the U.S. economy's 2001-2008 performance: recession, followed by one of the weakest recoveries since World War II, followed by another slump that technically isn't a recession yet. When President Bush leaves office, Krugman says, the U.S. economy will have created five million jobs, not nearly enough to keep up with population growth. By contrast, 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Administration.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators increased 0.1% in May, the Conference Board announced Thursday. (pdf)

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected the May index to remain unchanged in May. The index increased 0.1% in April and was unchanged in March.

The leading index has risen for the past two months, following a steady decline that began in the middle of last year, the board said. However, the number of components that are falling continues to be greater than the number of components that are rising over the past six months.