Not really. There was a dip in nominal GDP, because of a recession, but you can't blame that all on the Fed. You also are picking a weirdly arbitrary starting point.
Falling NGDP is very uncommon and very damaging. And I blame it all on the Fed. They are in charge of the nominal part. I picked 2008 because that's when they screwed up.
With short-term interest rates pinned near zero, monetary policy is not as powerful or as predictable as at other times.
Monetary policy is just as powerful. All you need to do is print money and change the target (if necessary). They could always hire some consultants from Zimbabwe if they are really desperate.
The Fed can only do so much with a dysfunctional fiscal policy. Blaming the Fed while they did everything right because their partner did poorly is the worst. I think we all remember group projects like that, and we sure didn't like being blamed when we did our part right.
Fiscal policy is of no importance for the nominal part. The Fed has complete control over that.
I should note that "high unemployment" has been falling consistently since it peaked in 2009, and it's pretty darn close (within 0.5%) of where it was when Bernanke took over (in the middle of a huge bubble, which lowered the unemployment rate).
Yes, a remarkable recovery for 8 years. /s
Again, is this the Fed's fault? I'm not sure how we could say so. The Fed had last raised interest rates in 2006
Interest rates are worthless as an indication of the stance of monetary policy. Or are you claiming that monetary policy was easy during the great depression and the great recession while tight during the high inflation periods (eg 70/80:s)? As Friedman claimed: low interest rates are usually a sign that money has been tight. Even Bernanke himself said that interest rates are worthless for this. Look at inflation and NGDP growth instead, was his suggestion.
It even undertook "unconventional" methods to try and keep us away from spiraling deflation. This, quantitative easing, was virtually unprecedented, though some argue that it might've been used during the Great Depression in a different form. The only real predecessor was Japan, and they started in 2001. That's it.
This was good, but too little and too late. Do you remember that the Fed left the rate unchanged (2%) in the meeting after Leeman fell? Do you remember that they implemented IOR that they said was intentionally contractionary at the end of 2008 because they were worried about inflation?
The fact that inflation is low is probably not due to Fed policy. Nor can the Fed do much to change it, not without some serious problems and unintended negative effects.
They have full control of a fiat currency backed by nothing. Of course they can create inflation if they want. Just print more money. And as I said earlier, ask Zimbabwe for hints if they are really clueless.