A real oddity to me is the desire to confuse during the recent financial driven economic turn down. Ultimately it comes down to what quantity is being eased and why when you have a perfectly good term for targeting monetary aggregates again when nominal interest rates approach the zero bound. Why a new term, ie quantitative easing, if the goal is not to hide that monetary targeting is the new policy?

Of related interest is Post-Keynesian stock-flow-consistent macro-modeling, which is a heterodox approach that perhaps also allows a larger role for stock-related impacts of monetary policy than New Keynesian macroeconomics, including the [Wynne] “Godley” interest-payments effect.

Modern Monetary Theory is another body of theories which hold that it is mostly the monetary aggregates and not policy interest rates that are endogenous in the relevant senses of the word. A primer on this theory can be found at this link:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

Perhaps obviously, I found myself moved to disagree by the section of the paper on Fed operating procedures. On the other hand, I would agree that empirically interest rate changes have little impact on most types of spending, especially business investment.

The paper raises and takes positions on some very interesting and important issues in monetary theory and policy. As an academic work, I would expect it to be a part of a debate that takes place mostly among neoclassical economists.

I don’t agree. You must have a Phillips curve theory of inflation to make government spending and taxation cause inflation and the Phillips curve theory has faired no better than the money supply theory. The sad fact is that economists don’t have a theory of inflation that has any degree of predictive power. Of course, this means economists don’t have THEORY of inflation.

I have not published it yet. I am working on it. asifruman(at)yahoo.com

Please provide references/links to your works which you mention in your comment