Your land is only becoming more valuable because you express its value in an inflationary currency. Try expressing its value in bitcoin for a laugh.
Now you are being ridiculous. Land doesn't and can't stagnate in value, it's a scarce resource. It fits ideally to your model. When economies develop, land owners get rich by doing absolutely nothing. This is more true than it was a thousand years ago.
Furthermore, no one, including Kurgman, is arguing about Bitcoin doubling in value every week. At best, it will be like gold when it's established.
The actual purchasing power that the land you own represents isnt going up significantly every year unless you made an above average clever investment.
Nope, it does, on average, because there is economic development and there is population growth. I'm not a clever investor, I just buy up land whenever I think the area needs more development. It never fails.
You and future generations cant live of the value of your land for the rest of your lives and accumulate more wealth in the process, not without taking economic risks.
Just like Bitcoin you mean?
At best it preserves your wealth.
You need to find land in a fundamentally barren place in order to meet that criterion.
The same goes for gold btw, an ounce of gold buys you a lot less labor today than it did 50 years ago. It also buys you roughly as much bread as it did 2000 years ago (despite massive productivity increases in farming and baking which ought to reduce its real price). Unlike a deflationary currency, buying gold or land doesnt make one get eternally richer, its only a way to preserve wealth.
So, your claim is Bitcoin is more deflationary than gold? How and why?