Nope.

Every currency can have low interest rates at the same time. It's not rates relative to each other that matters that impacts nominal activity, it's the absolute rate of each.

All currencies could have -10% rate at the same time (if they all introduced an exchange rate between cash and digital deposits).

Hard to claim that credit is the problem because we know for a fact that monetary policy is too tight right now (as indicated by where the nominal aggregates are). In any case the govt should largely not attempt to influence credit.

Until monetary policy is back to neutral, all other problems most economic ills are likely to be a consequence of bad money policy.

What do you mean too tight? The FOMC shouldn't have raised interest rates? Should be doing more QE? What would constitute neutral monetary policy?

The stance of monetary policy can't be assessed by looking at the level of interest rate (or the amount QE) -- otherwise you'd conclude that inflationary basket case Argentina has much tighter monetary policy than deflationary basket case Eurozone.

I'm not inventing this, this is from Milton Friedman.

You judge monetary policy by its result: where are the variables you are targeting vs your targets?

The Fed's target is "low inflation and full employment". Since over the past decade we've had very little inflation and high unemployment, we can conclude that Fed monetary policy was tight.

You might blame the less-than-specific target that the policy makers have chosen for this and you'd be right, it's way too vague and not that useful.

A much better target would be the level of average nominal wage per capita, or highly related but simpler: level of nominal GDP.

Based on these targets, monetary policy has been very tight over the past few years, particularly in the Eurozone.

Monetary policy is neutral if nominal GDP remains on a 5%/year growth path. Big drops in NGDP is basically equivalent to the central bank punching the economy in the stomach.

I'm not familiar enough with NGDP targeting (basically, I just heard the name, and know that it came up a few times after 2008), and sounds a hundredfold better than this wishy-washy design by a tea leaves cabal/committee. Though, I guess the committee then would determine the NGDP target. Which leads to the question, how do we know when a "deleveraging" is in order? (What's the consequence of sticking to 5% YoY GDP growth and never looking back? What if we overestimate the growth of the economy, that seems like real inflation.)

What are all these capital expenditures that are not viable at 0.25% but are viable at -0.5%? It's all just currency manipulation.