Quite simply monetary policy works downwards with higher interest-rates to depress demand-led inflation and GDP growth in money and real terms: it does not work upwards by lower interest rates to stimulate real growth as show by the failure of all the current QE etc.: only virtual growth results in terms of writing-up stock, property and land values and increased idle balances.

Since there is no long-run 'normal' equlibrium available by 'market forces' overall an economy can in principle graduate towards zero with government spending cutbacks, debt reduction and low interest rates, which broadly is what is happening. Greece shows an advanced working model of such monetary policy induced collapse.

The upshot is that relying on supply-upsurges fuelled by a flaccid private entrepreneurial system that aims at private profit and rent maximisation through increased poverty in real terms will only boost the growth of virtual money-terms profit, and will not lead to any substantial recovery.

So how forward? The State needs to take command and implement investment in real growth activity. Obviously this could be done by financing (and not out of bank-borrowings) production and social spending, roads, hospitals etc, , reduction of private consumer debt by transfering it to a low-interest fund in which the current lenders hold compulsory long-term paper; and money-grants to the poor (who will stimulate demand for real goods as opposed to shares etc because of their needs and their lowsavings rate). However where a 'Gladstonian' mentallity of debt repayment and tax cuts prevails this cannot be done short of a popular uprising, But propaganda against 'socialism' and the supposed idleness and worthlessness of the discarded part of the population then has an easy triumph in a society where 'greed is good' and men are supposed to be linked primarily by the cash-nexus and discard wider syumpathies,especially easy in multi-racial coutries. In so far as any GDP boosts then occur i spite of this liberal-individualism it will be through military spending; because there seems to be a greater public willingness to splash out on war than on humane objectives, even when war-debt is ultimately crippling (as was with UK 1945). The immediate advantage of military demand is that it can be endlessly self-renewing, either by obsolescence, military live-round 'exercises' or by mutual destruction and ruination of armies through conflict.

Here is the problem: the need to replace useless monetary policy by a new fiscal policy that is then devoted to social and national growth, and resists being turned into super-expensive bombs, and resists succumbing to the argument that state-initiative robs opportunities for private profit, whereas of course State spending creates money and can/should be directed towards increased activity and income in the service of the general good.