It's axiomatic that in investing, the consensus is always wrong -- so you should bet against it. But when it comes to today s crazy economy, it's not easy to tell what the consensus even is. From what I can see, it's all over the lot.

My friend Scott Grannis, one of the most acute economic observers I know, is absolutely convinced that the economy is in a booming V-shaped recovery. Every time some new piece of data comes in, he charts it and writes about it on his blog, citing it as more evidence for his V.

For example, when this week's Institute of Supply Management manufacturing index came out, he wrote a post "ISM index another V-sign." Grannis said:

Although the November reading was a bit lower than October's, the ISM index is still quite consistent with the 3-4% real GDP growth I've been calling for quite many months. This is yet another indicator that we are in a V-shaped recovery The market continues to be very nervous about growth going forward, but I see no sign of deterioration.

On the whole other side is David Rosenberg, the former Merrill Lynch economist now perched at Canada's Gluskin Sheff. He's so negative he sees no recovery at all, V-shaped or otherwise. He said last week that "we currently have a situation that is not consistent with a plain-vanilla recession but with a depression." So when he saw this week's ISM data that Grannis thought was so positive, Rosenberg said:

The consensus was looking for 55.0 on the ISM index but it came in at 53.6 for November, down from 55.7 in October. What was interesting was that inventories fell even more, to 41.3 from 46.9 where is the inventory cycle that all the economists had been claiming were going to support the recovery (so far, it s all about government)? The ISM has likely peaked for the cycle.

So there's no consensus, only an average. Take Grannis's exuberance and Rosenberg's bleakness and average them together, and what do you get -- something in between, something that looks like a sluggish recovery.

Victor Zarnowitz, a great economist who contributed mightily to our understanding of business cycles -- and who tragically passed away this year -- determined that the average economic forecast tended to be late in boom times, and early in bad times. In other words, during business expansions, most economists don't correctly foresee the end of the cycle and the coming of recession. They are too optimistic for too long. On the other hand, he found that economists tend to be a little early in predicting the end of recessions -- again, they are too optimistic.

So maybe this tilts the playing field a bit toward Rosenberg and away from Grannis. Rosenberg may be going overboard in his pessimism, but he may at least be right in thinking that people like Grannis are jumping the gun.

But on the other hand, Zarnowitz has something else to teach us that may help Grannis's case. What has become known as the "Zarnowitz rule" is that economic recoveries, following very sharp recessions, are usually especially vigorous. The harder the fall, the harder they bounce back. In that sense, Grannis has history on his side. You might even say that for him to be wrong, you'd have to dare to utter the four most expensive words on Wall Street: "This time it's different."

OK, I can't stop myself. I really think that this time is may be different. I don't think Rosenberg is right about us being in a Depression, but I think Grannis is being way too hopeful here.

For one thing, if there were going to be a super-strong V-shaped recovery, wouldn't we be seeing more of it already? After four back-to-back negative quarters for GDP, the first positive one -- the third quarter of this year, the most recent quarter for which data are available -- was only positive 2.8%. I suppose you could say that from little acorns mighty oaks will grow, but so far that's not all that impressive. The data so far on the fourth quarter, the one we're in right now, two-thirds of the way through, don't look especially better so far as I can see.

So where's the V, really? If more robust growth shows up at sometime next year, that's terrific -- but at that point you can't look back and say it was V-shaped.

The only thing that seems V-shaped is the stock market. As I've noted here several times in the last couple months, the rally we've been through from the March bottom is one of the very best in history in terms of the amount of gain logged over a short time period.

Stocks reflect expectations for the future, so you might argue that the V-shaped rally is a forecast of a V-shaped economic recovery. But I don't see it that way. A lot of the V in stocks is a snap-back from too-pessimistic expectations last March, when it really looked like the world was ending. Half the rally can be explained just by the fact that the whole world didn't lapse into a replay of the Great Depression. And the other half can be explained by expectations, instead, for moderate growth -- not a V-shaped recovery.

But then the third half -- wait, that's three halves! -- can be explained by the fact that the Fed and the Congress have been throwing money at this economy like crazy this year -- zero interest rates, stimulus, cash for clunkers, and all the rest. As I said here two weeks ago, that fire hose of money explains why the gold price has soared to new all-time highs, even while stocks are still almost 30% off-peak -- because all that money today means inflation tomorrow. Inflation -- not growth.

Yes, not growth. That money is showing up in stocks, and it's showing up in gold. But why isn't it showing up in growth? With all that money, is 2.8% growth the best we can do?

And then what happens when, inevitably, the money stops? If 2.8% was the best growth we could get with all that money, what's the best growth we can get without it?

All this caution doesn't make me a Rosenberg-style super-bear. But I'm sure not a Grannis-style bull, either. Let's say that both of them represent two separate and opposed consensuses. So the only way to make a contrarian bet is to split the middle.

How? I still think stocks are due for a nasty correction here. If it gets nasty enough, let's buy the dip -- when stock prices more accurately reflect the slow-growth world we're in now.