One economic data point that sort of slipped under the radar recently concerned the U.S. Federal Reserve's $78.4 billion payment to the U.S. Treasury in 2010, up about 65% from $47.4 billion in 2009.

And the reason for the revenue surge? Experienced investors or others who have reviewed the Fed's report will realize that much of it stems from income from the Fed's purchase of mortgage securities and Treasury securities in connection with the quantitative easing, part 2 program, or QE2.

Under QE2, the Fed will purchase up to $600 billion in assets from November 2010 to June 2011 -- this coming after the Fed purchased $1.7 trillion in assets through March 2010.

Financial Times columnist and economist Martin Wolf forwards the paradoxical, but nevertheless economically valid theory that "we can only cut debt by borrowing more."

Economic conservatives, including supply-side economics advocates and Tea Party backers, will no-doubt look aghast at the above, but investors should keep in mind that most of the conservative camp has shown concern primarily for: 1) cutting taxes and 2) cutting government spending -- not for the plight of the more than 15 million Americans without work. Now, if in the process of cutting taxes and spending U.S. unemployment goes to 15% or 20% -- which would likely be the consequence of spending cuts that reduce already low aggregate demand further -- so be it. In other words, if the free market says unemployment should be that high, then unemployment will rise. Just cut taxes and cut spending.

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) issued its statement indicating again that interest rates will remain low for an extended period of time. Thomas Hoenig dissented against the FOMC statement and wants a much tighter monetary policy. He still remains the only voice against the statement but is said to favor a change in language, not an immediate rise in interest rates.

The FOMC mentioned continued economic improvement but indicated that it was a mixed picture with high unemployment and depressed housing. With unemployment expected to remain elevated for the foreseeable future and little inflationary pressure from the CPI thus far, it is in no rush to tighten.

A good news data point for investors: China's economy grew at a 10.7% rate in Q4 -- a pace that pushed 2009 GDP to an impressive 8.7% pace, China's Xinhua News Agency reported Thursday, citing National Bureau of Statistics data.

"The accelerating GDP growth in the fourth quarter was due to a low basis of the same period in 2008, when the quarterly GDP expanded 6.8% from a year earlier, also indicating that the country's economy is on a strong rebound," said Zhuang Jian, senior economist for the Asian Development Bank, Xinhua reported.

Even though the regime has loosened some of the restrictions on currency exchange, inflation is still skyrocketing in North Korea. The government recently announced that it was moving to a new currency, and that the swap would involve a limit on how much could be traded. As a result, personal wealth was being consciously constrained, which led to the open questioning of the regime, defiance and rioting in some cases, and even a rare instance of flexibility among Kim Jong Il's subordinate decision makers.

Reports from inside the isolated communist state suggest that food shortages and price inflation have resulted from the new monetary policy, exacerbating a difficult situation with which the country already had to cope.

The timing couldn't have been worse. Just as a U.S. envoy arrived in North Korea to meet with the reclusive regime's officials, protests and violence are reported to have erupted. The country is reacting to a new currency issue that is being used to seize most of the citizens' money and savings.

On November 30, 2009, the regime announced that it would issue new currency and cap the amount that could be exchanged at the equivalent of $40. This effectively rendered the money held privately worthless.

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) issued its statement almost exactly as expected. The language on interest rates is remaining low for an extended period of time remained largely unchanged, and the decision was unanimous.

As I have mentioned earlier, the Fed continues to avoid any potential language which could disrupt the financial markets. Any potentially controversial ideas seem to be reserved for speeches by the Chairman and other government officials.

MarketWatch Chief Economist Irwin Kellner sometimes boldly goes where no man has gone before, to cite an old Star Trek phrase, and this week he evaluates the U.S. Federal Reserve's dilemma.

And what a dilemma it is: regarding quantitative easing policy, if the Fed withdraws its record cash injections too soon, it could trigger a double-dip recession, Kellner said. Conversely, if the Fed withdraws funds too late, inflation could re-heat. As part of its quantitative easing policy, the Fed's balance sheet has swelled to more than $2 trillion from about $869 billion in 2007.

Why would the government want a weak dollar? To get some perspective on the dilemma facing the Fed, let's go back to the Clinton years. During the 1990s, we had a booming economy. That booming economy fostered a strong dollar policy (i.e., strong economy equals a strong dollar).

Now the tables are turned and we are in the worst recession since the 1930s. We are mired in debt and our unemployment keeps rising. The housing market, while improving somewhat, is still in shambles. Banks are short of money to lend, keeping a lid on expansion, and on and on. So then we have the reverse of the 1990s.

Investors received yet another indicator Monday that this is not your father's recession.

The global economy will likely contract in 2009 for the first time since World War II -- including a decline in trade - - the World Bank announced in its most recent report.

The U.S.'s first fiscal stimulus package 'of size' since the recession's start has passed - - albeit in a modified form that decreased spending by about $140 billion over the original outline.

Further, the young President Barack Obama, like the young President John F. Kennedy, has learned that presidential honeymoons can be short inside the beltway, particularly if you have to trade policy to obtain votes both inside your party and among the loyal opposition.

Meanwhile, investors and the financial community more broader await the specifics pertaining to Obama administration's revised plan to stabilize the banking system, with the declining Dow discounting that even a successful plan will require months of systemic adjustment, and, of course, more public funds.

The nutshell on the 2009 World Economic Forum held in Davos? It was a conference where nearly everyone agreed that the financial crisis started in and is primarily the result of U.S. policy errors, but agreed on little else after that.

Further, the Davos gathering produced almost no new insights regarding the nature of the crisis beyond what is already known: that excessive leverage throughout the system, arcane and in some cases Frankenstein-like derivatives, inadequate national-level financial regulation, and the collapse of demand, set in motion first the U.S. recession, then the credit crunch, then the global recession.

With its benchmark and new, short-term interest rate already in its 0-0.25% target range, investors are expected to concentrate on the U.S. Federal Reserve's statement and any information (or clues) it may provide about both the U.S. economy and the central bank's quantitative easing policy.

Further, Fed officials are also considering a revision of the central bank's forecasts so that they include periods beyond three years, Boomberg News reported Tuesday. The Fed will release its statement Wednesday at 2:15 p.m. ET.

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks he, and probably many other economists, will be looking for any Fed commentary / analysis of its quantitative easing strategy.

Readers of this space know that a preferred tactic, stemming from the graduate school years and schmoozing with economists and policy wonks is to 'take the other side in an argument' or 'argue the alternate point-of-view.'

Well, one argument forwarded by economic conservatives, market absolutists and others is that the proposed fiscal stimulus package will be 'inflationary' and that it 'won't stimulate the economy.'

Arguing to the contrary...

Economist Peter Dawson took up the above argument, but only because BloggingStocks required him to do so (Ah, the power of the press!).

"A stimulus package that's both inflationary and that won't stimulate the economy," Dawson said. "Hmm? The logic is a little curious here, because inflation implies that there's demand and economic growth, and a failure to stimulate the economy implies there's very little demand and hence very little or no economic growth. The conclusions contradict, so what do the economic conservatives say the stimulus is going create, demand or no demand? I'll leave it for them to clarify their argument."

The impossible has happened. The Chicago Cubs won the National League pennant?

No, ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet is now in accommodation mode.

Trichet, a legendary inflation hawk, presided over the European Central Bank as it cut its benchmark interest rate by 50 basis points to 2% Thursday.

It was fourth consecutive monthly interest rate cut for the ECB and it matches the record low interest rate reached during the 2003-2005 period. However, Trichet, at the ECB's regular post-meeting news conference, indicated monetary policy makers will avoid a cut in interest rates at its next meeting in February, Bloomberg News reported Thursday.

Economist David H. Wang said there's a bright side and a downside to the ECB's most-recent action, and he isn't so sure the bank is done cutting rates, even with a prospective February pause.