> Again, your whole premise is that nominally stable prices are absolutely necessary and I reject it. I think much more damage would be done trying to keep them nominally stable than by simply allowing to go where they may. Have prices for the things that you think matter been nominally stable in the last 20 years? Cars, houses, medical insurance, rent, travel? They've been getting more expensive by a few percent a year. It would be better if they didn't change at all but it's the best we can do. The change so far has been small and predictable. Predictable change is the next best thing after no changes. > I don't see how this is a requirement for a well functioning economy. So you can plan ahead financially. In order to take up a loan you need to estimate whether your future income -- i.e. the prices for the goods and services you are selling -- will be high enough to pay it off. If you're the lender you're on the other side of the equation. Same for saving for retirement. > You're singling out tech saying it's an exception: why would that be the case? Is it because the rate of technical progress has been higher (however we measure it) in this sector than in other ones? So what? Should only sectors with stagnating productivity improvements count towards the nominal stability you think is so crucial? Yes correct the rate of progress has made it unpredictable and that works against maintaining price stability. Every sector should count towards that but if the ones that don't make up a smallish portion of the economy then that's not too bad.