The monetary policy has been preferred to fiscal policy to fight the recession, at least for United States. While Quantitative Easing has been recurrently applied in many episodes, from QE1 to the more recent QE4, there has been less attention paid to the possible uses of fiscal policy.
Quite surprisingly, although there is so much talk about the liquidity trap and its close concept, the zero lower bound (see the definition of liquidity trap), the criticism of these concepts is rather thin. This is even more puzzling since the liquidity trap concept is known for a long time, ever since Keynes proposed it (Rhodes did not find any mention of it in the work By Keynes).
If you read opinions like the one by James Bullard (current president of the Federal Reserve of St. Louis), you might think that Quantitative Easing has been a succes and it has shown how monetary policy can be effective even when the interest rate is near zero.
Explaining the crises (not all, but many of them) as being liquidity traps is not only a misinterpretation but it also leads to false solutions. Just look at the case of Japan after two decades of “policy experiments”. (New) Keynesians like Krugman have reduced its stagnation problem to a liquidity trap and prescribed a wrong therapy which in the end failed to lead to real economic growth. But probably the case of Japan deserves a separate discussion.
Some of the most prominent economists believe that inflation is a solution to the economic woes of US and Euro Area, and I particularly mean Krugman and DeLong. But is it so?