This will be an active week, as every week is, for short-term interpreters of stock market action, the folks who explain to you at the switch of a microphone why the market rose or fell. There is plenty of resource material this week, as there always is, and it will not matter that yesterday's reason for the market falling might be put into service again to explain a subsequent improvement. Negatively, losses at the Bank of New England are making that industry look bad, the bankruptcy of Campeau Corp. might depress retailing, the uprising in Baku might fuel speculation about Mikhail Gorbachev's future. As usual, the negatives make up an endless list. Relatively new to the list this week are renewed fears of rising interest rates, a spread of pessimism from Tokyo stocks to New York, and maybe a worsening of the budget deficit. Of use in explaining strength in the market would be any sign whatever that the Federal Reserve might consider the White House plea for lower borrowing rates, peace in the Soviet Union, or evidence of a pickup in corporate profits. All these are underlying possibilities, but they are not really immediate causes. Triggering them will be the usual statistical confetti from government and industry. This week's list includes an announcement about the federal deficit for December, the weekly money supply figures, and a really big one, an estimate of fourth-quarter gross national product. In addition, there will be the mid-January report of automotive sales, reports on new jobless claims and employment costs, and the level of durable goods orders during December. In action, these triggers can be wonderfully imprecise. Some lend themselves to ambiguity, and that makes them ideal for ambidextrous analysts, the kind with a predisposition to the phrase ``on the other hand.'' The same statistics can, and often have been, utilized by different interpreters to support opposite conclusions. It is entirely legal to use the same set of statistics negatively one day and positively the next. Moreover, government statistics often can be employed more than once, because the initial announcement often is revised. While revisions seldom are of major consequence, they are there to serve the interpreters, if necessary. Daily, in fact hourly, explanations are unusually complicated in recent weeks by a dichotomy in the ranks of economists and securities analysts. It is this: Is a strong economy good and a weak one bad, or is it the reverse? Specifically, a gross national product gain of 3 percent to 6 percent on an annual basis usually would be welcomed, because it would suggest economic strength and good corporate profits. But this week it might be bad news for stocks. The explanation lies in the attitude of the Federal Reserve Board, whose primary goal in the past year has been to restrain inflation. Therefore, an unexpectedly large gain might suggest an economy rising too fast, and provide sufficient reason to abandon any immediate plans to let interest rates find a lower level. The fourth-quarter report to be announced this Friday isn't likely to show any such gains; the consensus seems to suggest a gain of less than 1 percent. It could be good for the securities markets _ or it could be bad.
