I vote no.
The little reading that I've done argues that the natural interest rate for cash is zero, and government intervention is required to raise it. So then the question is whether intervention is good or necessary. I think both sides could be argued, but what we are really talking about is economic output. When there is too much money chases too few whatevers (goods, economic inputs, etc), you get inflation. This process repeated in specific areas leads to bubbles. Monetary policy tries to cool this down by limiting the supply of money by increasing the cost of loans. This is all very indirect, and very blunt. It would make far more sense to use fiscal policy to target areas that need intervention. Housing bubble? Limit reduce tax subsidies. Unemployment increase? Provide job guarantee or make specific investments in infrastructure or other lagging areas to direct some of that economic output to something useful.
I think the biggest arguments against this that I've seen is that since monetary policy by its nature is blunt and very simple, it seems to some degree apolitical, whereas fiscal policy necessitates the advice and action of the legislatures, i.e. the people, and maybe we the people can't be trusted with doing the right thing. Personally I don't buy it, but I think there could be a learning curve to this, after all it took many decades for the Fed to master monetary policy to the level it currently does, and it still doesn't always respond appropriately in hindsight. Maybe unleash the fiscal restraints we have now and let others have a go for a while.