I simply don't think prices have to be *nominally* stable for us to be able to financially plan things. Sure we need to avoid situations where a beer is 5$ one year, 13$ the next, 1.15$ the year after that etc etc
But that could only happen in two scenarios:
- either the money supply changes in crazy ways due to bad central bank planning,
- or the inputs to beer production go from being incredibly scarce to incredibly abundant due to natural disasters or incredibly positive changes in natural conditions, provided demand for beer stays the same of course.
The second case is quite unpredictable, but the first one can be avoided by not having a central bank in the first place.
Nothing makes me think that planning is any easier with a managed money supply. That's because nobody is planning for a generic future, we're all planning that specific goods and services we might need are going to have certain price ranges when we need them.
Let's say I'm building a next generation videogame console but I fail to anticipate that AI demand is going to make GPUs much more expensive. Should I complain about it to the central bank? What if I'm planning to increase the production of cereals but then the strait of Hormuz gets blockaded and fertilizers get so much more expensive, what then?
If anything a fixed money supply allows the price signal to be as clear as possible: prices change only due to demand, supply, and technology. I argue this would allow much better planning than nominal stability.
