M1 money growth in the u. s. was about 16% in 2008, 7% in 2009, and 9% in 2010. over the same time period, the yield on 3-month treasury bills fell from almost 3% to close to 0%. given these high rates of money growth, why did interest rates fall, rather than increase?

M1 money growth in the US was about 16% in 2008, 7% in 2009 and 9% in 2010. Over the same time period, the yield on 3-month Treasury bills fell from almost 3% to close to 0%. Given these high rates of money growth, why did interest rates fall, rather than increase? What does this say about the income, price level and expected-inflation effects?
Higher money growth (increase in the money supply) should have the following effects:
Liquidity effect indicates that this growth in money should shift money supply to the right, which should decrease the interest rate.
Income effect indicates that the growth in money should increase income levels, which should increase the demand for money and shift the demand curve to the right. This should increase the interest rate.
The price level effect indicates that the growth in money should increase price levels, which should increase the demand for money and shift the demand curve to the right. This should also increase the interest rate.
During this time period, unemployment was high, economic growth was weak and policymakers were more concerned with deflation than they were with inflation.
Therefore, the expected inflation effect was almost non-existent (due to the concerns with deflation) and the liquidity effect dominated all other effects, which made interest rates fall.
This is illustrated with the first graph on slide 32 of the Theory of Money Powerpoints.