Money, in and of itself, is just a generic contractual device; a generic promise-to-pay that is not far removed from the dubious significance of a personal check. Its primary advantage lies only in that it allows one to reach into the common pool of "goods and services" at any time and place on the continuum of "value," and obtain some item or service that took approximately as much energy to produce as the consumer contributed in turn, in terms of work (energy input to the flow). This is its only intrinsic value: i.e. as a tool.
Like any tool, money provides energy efficiency for each potential transaction: no one needs to physically lug around corn, lumber or barrels of oil to make a trade. Although money is essentially conceptual, it saves people a great deal of energy. It therefore serves as the effective equivalent of an energy source. However, since currency cannot otherwise physically inject energy into the process beyond this function --its effect already being spontaneously accounted for-- this is why monetary strategies intended to "stimulate" the economy ( by manipulating the flow of capital) have so little real affect on states of economic decline. Increasing the flow of money may indeed energize a segment of the economic continuum (but!) --unless an injection of real physical energy is a direct result of this increase, then it will ultimately merely reduce the overall value of the currency itself.
This strategy is typically implemented by manipulating the prime interest rate. But raising or lowering the interest rate is like squeezing a balloon at one end or the other in a futile effort to make it larger: For example, if they raise interest rates to constrict the money supply in an effort to "fight" inflation, the flow of money is reduced, so it exacerbates unemployment; but if they lower them in order to increase the flow of currency and thus create more jobs, the rate of inflation is amplified. Thus again, there is no net gain with respect to the underlying reality, so if an economy is experiencing a fundamental internal decline of energy in real terms, it will continue to decline.
This represents the central economic paradox of our times. It remains an unresolved chicken-and-egg conundrum that never really fully disappears even during the best of times, because it is basically a characteristic consequence of prevailing, money-centric interpretation of the modern economic process.
It is therefore highly significant that, while this may represent an "unresolvable" problem to our monetary authorities, we can point out --and easily demonstrate-- that any significant increase in the available abundance of energy (and thus also a corresponding decrease in its relative cost in terms of money) will induce the completely opposite effect, in that it will spontaneously reduce inflation and increase employment at the same time.
The reason, as we will continue to assert, is actually quite simple and straightforward: It's because the underlying physical economy is fundamentally an energy system, not a money system.