Few economists are willing to venture that the economy has turned a critical corner or even that it has hit bottom, with growth coming soon. However, the proliferation of "green shoots," good economic news amid all the bad, is enough to persuade many economists that the bottom just might be in sight.
The rate of economic decline appears to be slowing on many fronts, although not employment, which tends to be a lagging indicator. But even if the bottom is in sight, we still don't know how long the economy might linger there.
Once growth resumes, moreover, we can't be sure about the pace of the recovery or even whether it will last. But most economists do say that the deeper the recession, the faster the recovery.
By some indices, one of the better signs of a pending recovery is when business inventories plunge, meaning that warehouses and shelves are emptying and that goods will soon be needed to restock them. Recent surveys show inventories of many items dropping rapidly, suggesting that customers are buying and that new production may not be far behind.
From a political perspective, what might all of this mean for President Obama and his party's congressional majorities in next year's midterm elections?
If the economy continues to languish well into next year, most analysts agree that Obama and his Democratic Party will pay a price at the polls. Although voters are not blaming Democrats for the initial downturn, they recognize that at some point ownership of the nation's economic problems switches from President Bush to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
And the public's patience could eventually start wearing thin. My hunch is that the Democrats need the economy to bottom out no later than June 2010 and need evidence of a recovery by midsummer of that year.
If the economy does hit bottom and begin bouncing back by then, will Democrats necessarily benefit? Logic suggests yes, that a grateful nation rewards successful policies and that Republicans in Congress, with their virtually unanimous opposition to Obama's economic package, would not be able to claim ownership or even partial credit for the turnaround.
Historically, however, once a recovery is under way, voters tend to shift their focus to some other issue rather than reward elected officials for a job well done. One scenario could be that the vast government spending to prop up the financial and automobile sectors might take a toll on Democrats, that an economic win could turn into a Pyrrhic victory.
After all, once Prime Minister Winston Churchill finally led Great Britain to victory in World War II, voters turned him out of office.
Although Obama is nearing the end of his first 100 days with job-approval ratings averaging over 60 percent, polls show rising concern about the long-term effects of massive spending to turn the economy around. How do you know how much stimulus is enough to expedite a recovery without spending too much and leaving the country too indebted to allow healthy growth afterward?
Right now, many voters are saying, "Spend what it takes to get us out of this horrible recession."
But will they remember that when the recession is over and the bills have to be paid -- or deferred? Could the needed medicine have so many unpleasant side effects that the recovering patient fires the doctor?
All of this is purely hypothetical, of course, because no bottom has yet been reached, no recovery begun, and no blame yet shifted.
Such uncertainty should not drive what Obama and his party are trying to do to get the country out of the recession. But it may explain why the president, in his speech at Georgetown University, gave such a painstaking explanation about what his administration is doing and why.