This is based on a comment I made here.
Perhaps we need a bit of Socratic dialogue with the inflationphobics.
Q: What has caused more damage; entrenched inflation (the 1970s) or massive deflation (1929-32)?
A: Deflation. But that is not what we face.
Q: What has caused more damage; entrenched inflation (the 1970s) or unexpected disinflation* during a leveraging crunch (2008-?).
A: But inflation is evil.
Q: Why is inflation bad?
A: Because it distorts private decisions.
Q: Does it do that making basic parameters for judgement unreliable?
Q: So it is about creating a clear and reliable framing for private decisions?
Q: So, a central bank should provide a reliable framework for private decisions?
Q: So it is about framing expectations in a credible way?
Q: So, what is more important to people, expectations about income or expectations about prices?
A: [Some obfustication]
Q: So, should not a central bank seek to credibly generate expectations about income?
A. [Some more obfustication]
Q: In a highly leveraged age with many wages set by contracts operating across time and a range of "sticky" prices, which is more important to people, expectations about money income or "real" income?
A. [Even more obfustication]
Q: So, would not a clear target about aggregate income (aka NGDP aka Py) create a framework to anchor expectations in what people actually care about?
* Yes, other things are going on, but the surreptitious disinflation was when the US economy really nosedived.
ADDENDA Lars Christensen was good enough to repost the comment as a blog post.
Robert E. Lucas, JR on the industrial revolution -
1 minute ago