Buying land is an investment and like any other investment it can turn out good or bad.
Almost exactly like Bitcoin...
If you look at it as an investment today, yeah maybe; though much, much higher risk and potential reward. Land is probably about as stable as an investment as you can get while bitcoin is on the other end of the scale.
But thats not my point. I dont have a problem with a risky or potentially lucrative investment; Im saying you cant use it as a universal currency to replace credit money. No one is making that claim for land or gold either.
It just wont work if its value keeps going up. Among all other problems inherent to a deflationary currency, no one will be able to afford a loan and no one will be willing to give one.
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
YOu seem to look at money purely as an investment. To me its prime function is facilitating commerce and enabling economic prosperity.
Bitcoin might be suitable for the former; its far less so for the latter.
Pretty much like gold and land.