from what i've read so far (i've gone back and forth and jumped to other texts) they'd agree with you on this.
the basic premise so far is that, since the current monetary policy framework pits inflation against employment (we know this to be the case), and central banks run their economies at below full employment in orded to prevent inflation, there is an ongoing waste of human capital and productivity. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU -- they claim this is unnecessary and this is where they go against current orthodoxy, but not ready to discuss that yet--i'm actually quite shocked hahaha.
the first part of the argument is that the claim of many politicians that the government must tax and borrow in order to sped (e.g. thatcher's famous speech) is wrong. rather, money is created by sheer government spending, then tax and borrowing come afterwards, but... not to pay for the spending! but just to regulate the money supply and create demand for currency. which is how central governments run huge deficits: they are currency issuers not currency users. they don't operate like households/private business/local governments.
so we have central banks running economies very indirectly by regulating key interest rates (where they pit inflation vs employment) that encourage or discourage borrowing towards purchases,