My response was:
"What worries me about this attitude is that MMers seem to define "monetary accommodation" as "the Fed being successful", and they don't worry enough expectations trap type problems that could cause trouble and that actually present an opportunity for fiscal stimulus to give a helping hand.Anybody got a good answer for me?
So here's a question for you: how could I identify a case where monetary policy IS accommodating but where it fails? What would that look like? If there's not a good answer to that (and I haven't heard one yet), then the MM position reduces to "don't worry - everything will be OK as long as everything is OK", which needless to say is not reassuring. :
You can do this with fiscal policy. Get an estimate of the output gap, get an estimate of the multiplier, and back it out. Any remaining problems are chalked up to the fact that fiscal policy is not a silver bullet. I have no idea what a comparable exercise would be for monetary policy in the context of an MM outlook (you could probably figure something comparable for a New Keynesian view on monetary policy)."
Romer did something like this for the Depression. I wasn't entirely comfortable with what she did, but she basically took the same approach that we do with fiscal policy (get a gap, a multiplier, and back out the right amount). I don't feel like MMers are even in the ballpark of really engaging this question. They genuinely treat the question as "if we're not doing better then by definition we weren't accommodative".