No and no.

1) I'm not an econometrician - I have no idea if we're primed for a recovery, let alone a "superreocvery"

2) I think that effects occur slowly and at small orders of magnitude with respect to soft, eg, economic (in this case) power. The effect will be positive; the magnitude will be minimal; and the speed will be slow.

3) I know who Richard Florida is; I've read one of his books and am familiar with his others. Who turned him from being a sociologist on the comparative advantages of cities to the forecaster of the American economy? Please pipe up here, Dr Drezner! Why should I listen to the author of "Who's Your City"?

Question(s) to readers: do you think the U.S. economy is primed for an supercharged recovery?

Sure. That's fairly typical for the US, particularly if they can get another bubble going in one of the economic sectors.

I'm much more worried about employment and unemployment. While we finally got some signs of job creation, what I've seen so far suggests we might get a continuation of the trend that started in 2000 - anemic job creation.

Job shortages remain problematic as the industrial, service and banking sectors have learned to make do with less (employees). The bounce-back for those still un-and underemployed may lie in acquiring different skills or with new industries willing to train, eg, green jobs, alternative energy etc. While recessions don't last forever and the economy is showing some signs of resurgence, profitability can only be justly measured by new employment opportunities and sustainable job creation. Progress here will probably take some time. The corporate real estate bubble threatens to burst and consumer spending remains markedly conservative. Problems with fiscal oversight and banking regulations remain contentious. There are fewer but much bigger banks dominating which diminishes competition. So we are still not out of the woods. Finally, to conflate confidence in prosperity with acquiescence to certain foreign engagements is wrongheaded no matter the economic conditions. Like church and state, one should not inform or endorse the other.

The history of financial crises show that employment levels take several years to recover to pre-crisis levels. There is nothing in any data I've seen to make me think that we will be an exception. Also, US households must continue to de-leverage, which means more savings, less consumption. The strengthening dollar is the last thing we need right now, as it will put a damper on our export markets. Since our households are unable to continue to leverage up to continue their old consumption levels, exports would be one of the only channels through which we could achieve growth in the short- to mid-term.

The housing market won't recover anytime soon, and without that, households are feeling a lot poorer. Aggregate demand will be low for a long time to come.

The only argument I can find in your quoted article to support a quick recovery is some version of "AMERICA F***K YEAH!, therefore recovery." That is not an economic argument. Do better.

How will the fictitious "supercharged recovery" affect attitudes toward American foreign policy vis a vis Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not much. Vis a vis every other foreign engagement? Probably not much.

I don't think that attitudes of the average US citizen toward Iraq and Afghanistan have soured because of the recession. Iraq, specifically, soured long before the economy began to turn. They have soured because wars are gruesome and deadly, and people began to realize that their was no longer a compelling enough reason for their sons and daughters to be suffering so greatly. I wasn't clear from your post whether you were claiming that the recession was a factor in our fatigue toward these conflicts, or if it was these conflicts that was leading to fatigue about everything else.

If it is the latter, I don't believe your premise. Are you claiming that Americans in general have become weary of ANY sustained foreign engagement? What are your data to support this? People seemed very engaged and willing to assist Haiti after the earthquake, and there are many enthusiasts for becoming more engaged either diplomatically or through military action against Iran, to cite two examples. I don't see this general foreign fatigue that you claim is self-evident.

Perceptions of success/failure in Iraq and/or Afghanistan are less important than an overall fatigue with the costs and stresses of those endeavors -- even wars we've clearly won cause an inward turn in their aftermath.

I don't see a qucik recovery because many of the factors described in the article are not actually happening -- particularly the willingness to write-off bad debt.

The government sponsored delay of foreclosures of mortgages in default is a clear example -- as is the extension of unemployment to 99 months. We are falling into the European and Japanese models of delaying the inevitable restructuring -- and this is going to slow recovery.

I don't know, Dan.

I value optimism as much as the next guy, but Kevin Drum offers reasons for his view that the economy is in for a tough slog. Gross in particular offers in support of the contrary position anecdotes, many of them from a generation ago or more.

I don't discount what he says about America's adaptability, which though greater in some areas of our national life than others can be a formidable thing. However, a lot of the argument that Gross makes seems to be founded on the idea that the United States had the automobile and the Internet just pop up before, so we should expect something similarly marvelous to just pop up again, and in the near future. I read Gross while thinking that there had to have been some Americans who were convinced that Vietnam was bound to turn out well because the United States had never lost a war.