Here are, as commenter Mark A Sadowski suggests, some "words to live by":
Moral: Inflation is not the greatest economic evil, and absolute price stability is not the greatest economic good.In considering money and monetary policy, one should always remember to ask the question: what is money for?
The short answer is: to make transactions easier, to reduce transaction costs (for both on-the-spot and across-time transactions). The notion that "price stability" at the cost of pushing transactions seriously below trend is some advance is a classic piece of goal displacement.
This is what makes targeting money GDP/Py make so much sense (the goal of the "Market Monetarists" as Lars Christensen names the new macroeconomics school in his useful summary paper [pdf] and which I have argued for on expectations grounds). It is the monetary authority aiming to optimise money's performance of its central purpose--to lubricate transactions: both immediate and cross-temporal transactions. Even better, it is using a goal which provides a clear empirical evidence about whether it is doing that or not (and so, as Joshua Hendrickson points out, making the central bank far more accountable).
Lowering inflation from 13% to 4% in the "Volcker Transition" is one thing. Lowering it from 3% to 0% while pushing transactions seriously below trend and creating a much worse economic downturn is quite another. What do the people who preside over such an outcome think money is for? What do they think they are for?