Should central banks target 2% inflation?

Long-term inflation at 2% can cause an economic downturn

Question: Should central banks target 2% inflation?
Position‹2 of 3›: No, even targeting 2% inflation does not lead to monetary stability
Argument: Long-term inflation at 2% can cause an economic downturn

Lowering inflation, instead of keeping it at 2%, would be ideal in curbing the negative effects that inflation itself could have on the global economy.

The argument

Inflation at 2% can have serious negative effects on an economy in the long run for several key reasons. People fear the instability that comes along with higher inflation because their purchasing power and standard of living decrease as inflation grows higher and higher. Those wage earners with largely fixed rate of pay (like pensioners) also have a difficult time adjusting to the increasing prices that come along with higher inflation, making it difficult for them to catch up with their local AND federal economic circumstances. According to the Bank of Canada, "Business people, workers, and investors respond to rising inflation by pushing up prices, wages, and interest rates to protect themselves. This can lead to a 'vicious circle' of rising inflation." The costs of constant inflation at 2% greatly outweigh the potential benefits, which is why economies should aim toward 0% inflation rather than a steady 2%.

Premises

[P1]Sustained 2% inflation erodes purchasing power and disproportionately harms fixed-income earners like pensioners who cannot adjust their wages to rising prices. [P2] When inflation persists, businesses, workers, and investors raise prices, wages, and interest rates defensively, creating a vicious circle of further inflation. [P3] The long-run costs of maintaining 2% inflation outweigh its potential benefits compared to a 0% target. [C] Therefore, central banks should not target 2% inflation, since even that level fails to deliver monetary stability.

Counter-arguments

Though high inflation can cause instability over time, a steady 2% rate can toe a good balance between low and high inflation. Without inflation, an economy would have no room to grow in the various technological markets that boost its overall value on a global scale, and the level of instability that has been proven to result from this can be catastrophic in both the short- and long-term economic output. At a steady 2%, the future is much more predictable and, therefore, more manageable for consumers and investors alike. 2% is a much better alternative to 0%, and though inflation could potentially decrease to 1.5% to boost the individual's purchasing power, there is great strength and much-needed foundation in 2%

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] 2% creates more overall stability in the long-term because 0% causes a huge imbalance in a national economic landscape. [Rejecting P3] 2% should be steadily maintained, not 0%.