Just this week there was a report released stating that the economy grew at a "blistering" (that's AP's word) 7.2 percent in the third quarter.

That's the strongest rate of growth since the first quarter of 1984.

The report trumpeted the growth in gross domestic product.

That's the broadest measure of the U.S. economy's performance. It measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States.

In the second quarter, the GDP grew by a robust 3.3 percent, and economists predicted the third quarter number would be somewhere in the range of 6 percent.

Listen to Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Economy.com: "This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy in the third quarter."

Yeah, that's true, because when the GDP grows, it's pretty much universally accepted as a good thing.

Remember, the GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced.

"Produced" is the key word there. If U.S. companies - manufacturers, service providers, etc. - are producing more, it's a positive development for everybody.

Manufacturers watch their inventories. They don't ramp up production unless there is demand, especially in these less-than-optimistic economic times.

So to see that level of increase in GDP does, I think, warrant the "blockbuster" label.

What manufacturers must be seeing is that consumers are willing to open their wallets these days.

That's a good thing, too, because that means consumers generally are feeling like spending.

In uncertain economic times, consumers tend to put off purchases. The GDP number would tend to indicate consumers are buying.

Even though GDP is up, one of the big problems with the economy remains - unemployment.

But it only stands to reason that as manufacturers increase production, hiring will follow.

How much hiring is up for debate.

I honestly don't believe we will reach the level of employment we had in the late 1990s. I think companies tended to overstaff and overcapitalize during those boom years.

The result was that during the economic downturn of 2000 and subsequent years, companies found themselves with too many workers and too many resources.

Downscaling was rampant in all sectors and the jobless rate rose.

I think most companies are a little leaner and meaner these days. And a little smarter.

Even so, I believe that unless this third-quarter GDP number is an aberration, better employment numbers are soon to follow.

The U.S. economy is a patchwork of dozens of complex factors and sectors.

But if you think about it and break it down to its lowest common denominator, it seems pretty simple.

When people buy more stuff, manufacturers make more stuff. When manufacturers make more stuff, they hire more people. When they hire more people, more people have more money to buy more stuff and they cycle starts all over again.

Consumers drive the economy. When they feel good about the future, they buy. When they feel uncomfortable about the future, they don't.

When they don't buy, the economy falters.

I tend to think that consumers these days are getting used to a certain level of uncertainty in the world.

They've habituated.

Ever walk into a room where a pot of coffee is brewing? It smells really strong. But a few minutes later, you don't really notice the smell of coffee.

That's habituation.

After 9/11, consumers were a little gun-shy.

But lately, I think, they (I say they as if I am not one of them) have decided that, well, yeah, there's this war thing and this terrorism thing and all the other uncertainties in the world, but you know what? I'm gonna buy stuff anyway.

They're used to the idea that the world is a dangerous place and have learned to live with it.

We'll see if the trend holds. I hope it does, but it certainly could change. Consumers are a skittish lot and it doesn't take much to get them to close those wallets.

Of course, the politics of the economy fascinate me almost as much as the economy itself.

A strong economy bodes well for W's re-election, and this drives Democrats nuts.

There are those in the eco-political world who say that Iraq and the size of the deficit are meaningless if the economy recovers significantly by Election Day.

David Wyss is the chief economist at Standard and Poors in New York. Associated Press quoted him in a story earlier this week.

"Given our current forecast for the economy, we show Bush getting 56 percent of the vote. Iraq doesn't figure in except as it affects the economy," Wyss said.

Then there's Yale economist Ray C. Fair, who wrote a book called "Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things."

He forecasts a comfortable Bush victory if economic trends continue, according to Associated Press.

He uses a model that tracks presidential races back to 1916. It takes into account inflation and economic growth rates and gives extra points for spurts of higher-than-usual growth like the one this week.

Republicans get a slight historical edge. The model gives points for incumbency and deducts them if the president's party has held the White House for two terms or longer.

As a one-term GOP incumbent, with low inflation and rising growth, "Bush has the best of all possible worlds," Fair said.

It's more than a coincidence that the last time there was this big a jump in the GDP was in 1984. That was after Ronald Reagan, presiding over a sluggish economy with high inflation numbers, urged a massive tax cut through Congress.

The idea is that if you let people keep more of their money, they will spend it and stimulate the economy.

The economy grew and Reagan won 49 states in the following election.

Right now we have all nine Democratic candidates telling us that we have to roll back W's tax cuts. Tax cuts are bad, they say.

Might be time for a change in strategy.

People in both parties agree that a recovering economy, particularly if it includes job growth, would benefit Bush and other Republicans running for re-election.

What's a self-respecting Democrat to do? Hope for a bad economy? [[In-content Ad]]