Please interpret my message in good faith - it is honest rationality that brings us to this conclusion.

Epistemologically, logical arguments from 1st principle I think are of highest value, and evidence or observation after that, and both support the claim that centrally planned economies create worse outcomes, be it for cars like Trabant vs BMW or currency like $ and €.

I welcome you to convince me, and that curious quest for truth is what brings many of us onto the internet. It may sound high and mighty but is sincere. This is my 2nd language so apologies for the lack of finesse.

Since “nomen est omen”, let’s define.

“Price” is in a free market where demand and supply meet. For labour, for cars, for chewing gum, and so much more.

When there is a lot of demand, rising prices are a signal to produce and be rewarded. Those who successfully do so will be rich, and want to invest their money in the most efficient way possible. This leads them to finding others who want to satisfy demand, invest in them, and there is a virtuous cycle. This effect is simple, but very important. Don’t take it lightly - it has given even the poor what kings could only dream of a few hundred years ago. We don’t live in a perfect Eden, but we have risen far.

It is also good, if ethics are universal, because it contains no coercion, violent force, or other such evils.

Currency is one thing of many traded. It has a price relative to other currencies, but also to bananas, chewing gum, cars, labour, etc. What to use as currency, and the price of currency, would in a free market be set by supply and demand. The price and object of currency would therefore reflect the wisdom of the crowd, rather than committee.

Central bank currency requires a state to use its police and military to force people to trade in it, rather than the currency they themselves prefer. Central bank currency allows the state to print infinite amounts of money, like in Weimar, or since 2008 with QE infinity. When you create money, the value of every salary is effectively lowered. The state first and the banks second get to deal with the new money, while it’s still valued as before it’s printed. With this you can fund wars, and bribe the population for votes with welfare programs that create addiction to the state.

Central banking was Marx’s 5th point in his communist manifesto - “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”. Another notable point in the communist manifesto was state run public schools rather than freedom in education.

So just like central planning of the car economy in east Germany led to worse driving and long lines for East Germans, central planning of currency leads to worse economic outcome for most people. See for example how income from capital vs income from labour diverged in America after 1971, as in the link above. Labourers got majorly screwed, while growth in efficiency continued (I.e value of capital) to climb.

I invite you to either from first principles or evidence show that supply and demand is better determined by the state or a semi-state organisation, preferably with a good argument for why a central planning committee will be more efficient and virtuous than free decentralised people trying to satisfy the demand of others best they can, and I promise to accept reason. It’s worthwhile to recall that philo means love and sophy means wisdom/reason.

Many of these ideas I’ve learned from the books of Austrian philosopher/economist von Mises. His books are on Amazon but also available as pdf, html, and ePub here https://mises.org/library/human-action-0