David Andolfatto asks why market monetarists believe that nominal GDP level targeting will help solve our current problems. Of course, most market monetarists see nominal GDP level targeting as the best (I always say, "least bad,") monetary regime. It isn't just a quick fix for current conditions.
As best I could tell from his questions, he just claims that since it has been over three years since 2008, so why is it that if the problem is "nominal" there just hasn't been an adjustment in prices and wages as well as a renegotiation of contracts. Since that hasn't happened, it must be that the problem is not nominal, and so a return of nominal spending back to something close to the trend of the Great Moderation would result in capacity constraints, bottlenecks, and higher inflation, with little expansion in production or employment.
As an advocate of a regime of nominal GDP targeting, I believe that if there is a large decrease in the growth path of productive capacity, then temporarily higher inflation and a persistent increase in the growth path of the price level is the least bad response. I think it is a good thing that creditors share the burden of an unexpected decrease in productive capacity.