Much has been made locally about the “rah-rah” predictions of things getting better economically than reported in the mainstream news media — and that no recession is looming in the the next three years — at the 11th annual Asheville Metro Economy Outlook on July 27 in downtown Asheville.

Following our report on the forum in last month’s Daily Planet, we have heard from skeptics who felt the analyses and forecasts were flawed because the two economists who spoke had obvious conflicts of interest, causing them to be rosier-than-justified.

While both men are respected locally, and James E. Smith, chief economist for Parsec Financial, has built a national reputation, there is no getting around that their firms stand to benefit from perceptions of improving conditions. Smith spoke on the international and national economy. Tom Tveidt, addressing local conditions, is president and research economist for SYNEVA, a private consulting firm offering regional economic analysis.

The other possible conflict raised was that the speakers naturally would tend to skew their analyses to please the sponsor of the Asheville Area Chamber of Comerce event, Parsec, which would, as an investment firm, surely benefit from the well-heeled continuing to buy stocks and bonds, instead of, say, stocking up on precious metals, ammunition and food.

However, in our analysis, many have ignored the caveats in Smith’s predictions — that certain occurances, such as a natural disaster, another terrorist attack, skyrocketing oil prices or the actions of Congress — could shift America back into recession. Given that some — if not all — of the aforementioned are likely, Smith’s forecasts could be interpreted as being cleverly coded in a way that requires careful reading between the lines.

As for Tveidt, we think he erred in touting the recent increase in government jobs as a plus, and one of the bright spots in the local economy. To the contrary, savvy economists argue that government jobs are a drag on the private sector, channeling precious capital into the hands of those who produce nothing.

For those who believe it takes a dynamic tension of opposites to get to the truth, perhaps the conflict-of-initerest issue could be resolved by deliberately choosing two bright economists with conflicting viewpoints on what’s going on, leaving it for the public to choose for itself who makes the better case.