The last week has been peculiar in the variety of messages being presented as to where we are in the economic cycle.
Most significantly we had the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney telling us that economic recovery has now "taken hold".
Carney is by nature a cautious man and was simply telling us that the economic foundations have been laid but that we must recognise that there are still potential difficulties ahead.
However, Carney did state, "For the first time in a long time, you do not have to be an optimist to see the glass is half full."
It should be noted that on Wednesday the Bank of England raised its growth forecast for 2013 to 1.6% (up 0.2%) and to 2.8% in 2014 (up 0.3%).
The coalition government must be delighted with the continued good economic news.
Therefore, it is no surprise that many commentators are now predicting that the historically low interest rates that have existed since 2009 could start rising much earlier than had been expected.
If unemployment falls below 7% it has been suggested by Carney that this could be a "trigger-point" for increasing interest rates.
A number of commentators are now suggesting that unemployment could fall more quickly than anticipated and the sub 7% rate may even be achieved sometime in 2014.
As if to act as a brake on the belief that the suffering endured by many in the last five years is far from over Paul Fisher who is a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, has stressed that the UK economy is "a long way" from any return to normality and that any rise in interest rates will depend on more than the sub 7% unemployment being reached.
So called 'cheap' money the use of quantitative easing has been the way in which economic stability has been achieved and has ensured that consumer demand has been propped up.
Without quantitative easing, we have been consistently informed, we really would be in serious trouble.
So it was fascinating to see that McKinsey Global Institute last week published a report into the effects of quantitative easing. This study pretty much says that we have all been the losers of near zero interest rates.
Governments, most particularly those in the US, here in the UK and in the eurozone, have been huge beneficiaries of quantitative easing through the fact that servicing national debts becomes cheaper.
The McKinsey study believes by the end of 2012 they had gained about $1.6 trillion (not far off one trillion pounds) by both the reduced costs of debt and increased profit through central banks that create money to buy government debt.
When you think about this in simple terms it feels like a huge scam!
However, national debt is something that we all have to pay taxes on to service, so this should be good news.
But what the McKinsey study also takes into account is the way in which we have lost out as societies of savers.
McKinsey suggest that the cumulative loss between 2007 and 2012 for American, British and eurozone citizens was $360 bn., $110 bn. and $360 bn. respectively.
What seems to be the case is that those who have benefitted from quantitative easing are the young who tend to borrow, and that the main losers are the old who, by and large, tend to save.
As one commentator I came across suggested, this is only fair as it was the previous generation who created the circumstances that caused the global financial chaos.
However, that is an over-simplification and not much comfort to those pensioners so petrified of rising energy costs that they believe they cannot afford to keep warm.
Therefore, the old, who are more likely to vote, and have experienced the detrimental impact of low interest for the last four years as their savings are eroded by inflation, probably look forward to the point at which 'normality' returns and rates go up to 4 or 5%.
Increased interest rates have a converse effect and will have a devastating effect on those families who are already struggling to make ends meet.
The prospect of a hike in the amount they would have to pay back on their mortgage is probably horrific; most particularly given that wages are not going to rise significantly any time soon.
Some commentators argue that the effects of the credit crisis have made the social divide between 'haves' and 'have nots' simply widen and that more needs to done to ensure that the positive aspects of economic recovery are equally distributed.
Jacob Mohun who is an economist at the New Economics Foundation believes we need to ask questions about who will really benefit from the recovery.
Mohun contends that the recent recovery has been too largely based on rising house and equity prices.
As money flows through the housing and equity markets due to quantitative easing and the Help to Buy scheme, the consequence, he believes, will be that recovery will simply make the owners of shares and houses feel richer as their assets rise.
Unfortunately only those who can afford to invest will benefit in the long-term. For first-time home buyers as prices increase rapidly this becomes largely impossible.
What is needed, Mohun argues, is economic policy to ensure that investment and spending has wider impact.
This is a point made by Gavin Kelly who is the Chief Executive of the 'thinktank' The Resolution Foundation wrote in The observer .
Similar to others who believe that recent years have seen a significant structural shift in the economy in terms of earnings, he voices his concerns about the fact that pay has fallen and whilst the young have "fared terribly" relatively the old tend to be generally better off.
Kelly notes that even though "relatively high-paying" sectors such as business services have created some 460,000 jobs, there has been an equally dramatic reduction in manufacturing and public administration jobs that have traditionally been reasonably paid and offered potential prospects for advancement.
The fact that there has been a rapid increase in jobs in the low paid sectors such as hospitality and care will certainly not have assisted the distribution of wealth he believes.
Kelly states his view that we may have to prepare ourselves foe a "prolonged wage-poor, job-rich recovery."
Last week David Cameron when he delivered his speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet at the Guildhall told us that we should be willing to accept austerity for years to come as the government continues its plan to create a "leaner, more efficient state."
When Cameron stated his belief that, "We need to do more with less. Not just now, but permanently," he presumably means that austerity will continue after the next general election.
There are many who would suggest that an alternative is needed if we are to avoid an increasingly divided society.
Gavin Kelly passionately believes that key task of the next government is to ensure that "the link between economic growth and living standards" is restored though, he asserts, this objective won't be assisted by tax rises and in a "nation of debt-drenched households."
What is obvious is that even though economic recovery may have started in earnest, a great deal more needs to be done to both ensure that it is sustainable and that it creates opportunity for everyone to increase their living standards.
