Where the U.S. economy is concerned, what's good for the goose is often not good for the gander. Several reports this week underscore the point.

* On Wednesday, the Labor Department reported that consumer prices fell by 1 percent last month, the largest monthly amount in 61 years.

Great news, right?

Not exactly. Prices dropped because frustrated retailers are struggling to get customers in the door, customers whose discretionary dollar has diminished and whose economic fears are raised. Fewer customers, fewer products needed. Fewer products needed, less production required, fewer employees needed, unemployment rises.

* Third-quarter consumer spending fell the most in 28 years because tight credit markets aren't allowing people to borrow money and spend it. And 72 percent of the gross national product is dependent on consumer spending.

Of course, when the Consumer Price Index drops, so does the cost of living allowance for 48 million Social Security recipients, 22 million people on food stamps and 4 million military and federal civil service retirees and survivors. A lower CPI also means smaller wage increases for a couple of million union workers.

But, hey, if prices are dropping they'll need less, right?

* The Labor Department also reported energy prices dropped in October by a record 8.6 percent. Gasoline prices fell 14.2 percent. The national average fell 33 cents last month, to $2.07.

Great news? On the surface maybe, but not below the surface. Gasoline prices are down because global demand is down. Global demand is down, of course, because of worldwide economic slowdowns, which generate job losses.

And let's not forget, consumer prices were 3.7 percent lower last October and gasoline prices may be dropping now but they still are 12 percent higher than they were a year ago.

The whirlwind of this fall's financial crisis tends to make us forget that a few short months ago, when gas was going for $4 a gallon and oil was selling for $147 a barrel, economists were mostly concerned that inflation was spinning out of control.

* Speaking of energy prices, the Interior Department on Thursday reported that oil and gas drilling on federal lands in Colorado netted royalty payments of $178.4 million for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. The money goes to school districts, local governments and the water conservation board, all of which benefit from a 45 percent rise in payments from 2007. But next year, because oil and gas prices have plunged, the dollar distributions will drop accordingly. Yet consumers will benefit via lower utility bills and pump prices.

* Similarly, the Colorado Geological Survey reported Tuesday that the value of natural gas produced here was down 9 percent last year from 2006. That means that state and local governments already will see adverse effects, since they get the share of royalties from mineral production. But production is down because prices are down, and the mixed results will mean lower heating bills but fewer jobs.

"Lower energy prices are definitely a mixed blessing for Colorado," said Rich Wobbekind, director of the business research division at the University of Colorado's Leeds School of Business. "When the state's economy was going gangbusters a couple years ago, higher prices for energy and agriculture were propping it up. Now we're seeing lower commodity prices because of lower demand. Lower energy prices may be good for consumers but they are not good for the energy sector and that means bigger unemployment numbers."

I'm getting nostalgic for the so-called Goldilocks economy of the mid- to late- 1990s - not too hot, not too cold, but just right. Relatively low inflation, relatively low interest rates, a slowly growing economy and no need for the Feds to undertake policy measures to improve performance. Life was so simple back then.

Let me leave you with a quote that investment guru Vinny Catalano used to end a recent column:

"Bye, bye Goldilocks. Hello, Bride of Frankenstein."