Ludwig von Mises in Human Action (free pdf here) pointed out the popular fallacy that is at the heart of our current monetary policy. That is Central Banks must target a specific ~2% inflation target, and that deflation is bad. This is a group of people in positions of influences arbitrary value judgement of what is “best”. It is policy to render the “price level” stable.
The notion of a neutral money is no less contradictory than that of a money of stable purchasing power. Money without a driving force of its own would not, as people assume, be a perfect money; it would not be money at all.
It is a popular fallacy to believe that perfect money should be neutral and endowed with unchanging purchasing power, and that the goal of monetary policy should be to realize this perfect money. It is easy to understand this idea as a reaction against the still more popular postulates of the inflationists. But it is an excessive reaction, it is in itself confused and contradictory, and it has worked havoc because it was strengthened by an inveterate error inherent in the thought of many philosophers and economists.
These thinkers are misled by the widespread belief that a state of rest is more perfect than one of movement. Their idea of perfection implies that no more perfect state can be thought of and consequently that every change would impair it. The best that can be said of a motion is that it is directed toward the attainment of a state of perfection in which there is rest because every further movement would lead into a less perfect state. Motion is seen as the absence of equilibrium and full satisfaction, as a manifestation of trouble and want. As far as such thoughts merely establish the fact that action aims at the removal of uneasiness and ultimately at the attainment of full satisfaction, they are well founded. But one must not forget that rest and equilibrium are not only present in a state in which perfect contentment has made people perfectly happy, but no less in a state in which, although wanting in many regards, they do not see any means of improving their condition. The absence of action is not only the result of full satisfaction; it can no less be the corollary of the inability to render things more satisfactory. It can mean hopelessness as well as contentment.
With the real universe of action and unceasing change, with the economic system which cannot be rigid, neither neutrality of money nor stability of its purchasing power are compatible. A world of the kind which the necessary requirements of neutral and stable money presuppose would be a world without action.
Regardless if you are position on this topic, consider Mises position in the above paragraph. Then consider the situation where the vast majority of the population believe the opposite, that is that neutral money is desirable. The end result being “hopelessness” / “a world without action”.
What would be the most important action of the minority that do have the correct insight that money neutrality is fallacious? Convincing the masses of truth, by education and pointing out the reasoning that explodes the fallacies that have taken root.
Now snap back to your reality with your preconceived notions of monetary policy. What is the harm of doing some background reading (such as the above excerpt from Mises)? What if we are heading down the above path? All I ask would be to form your own opinion on the topic of the Neutral Money monetary policy. Man, Economy, State is a mammoth book but is the bible for Economics proper. (Free pdf here).