Buying land is an investment and like any other investment it can turn out good or bad.
Almost exactly like Bitcoin...
But even if land were the only risk free investment in the world that was guaranteed to increase its inflation adjusted purchasing power over time, it would do little to refute my argument because land isnt our currency. Our wages are not paid in acres, food prices arent set in it, loans are not made in it and its not what drives our economies primarily. I can do business without owning any land, I cant to business without having any money.
... minus the fact that it isn't as liquid. By your description, both should correlate well with economic growth in the long run. So I guess the difference still boils down to Bitcoin being accessible to everyone, which was my point. I will need to think more about how this fundamental changes things.
You cant have economic growth and stable value if the amount of money is unable to adjust to the economy the way credit money can.
Sure, I wasn't going for stable value. My question is, why being able to invest in another scarce resource does not result in stagnation?
Your answer seems to be:
- Land isn't as liquid
- Gold isn't as scarce