Money itself is mostly done fine. Mostly: There are exceptions, but (outside of wars) I know if only a handful of examples where governments had something less stable than Bitcoin.
I guess you could call it stable. A stable decline!
First: That, within certain bounds, is deliberate — a small level of inflation helps the rest of the economy by encouraging spending. The last thing you want is people HODLing their paycheques.
Second: your link shows an average halving time of the US dollar purchasing power of 22.5 years. Bitcoin has about the same price today as it was 6 and 12 months ago, but was about double that 3 and 9 months ago. Even the Brexit referendum’s effect on the GBP would be hidden in the noise of BTC’s volatility.
Second: Yes. No one is denying that Bitcoin is volatile. If you pick any arbitrary period of time you can come up with whatever statistic you want. This is not sound argument IMO.
Except: money stuck in savings accounts also means the money isn’t spent on goods & services, so fewer jobs are supported, so productivity goes down, which is effectively +ve inflation even with the money supply perfectly fixed, but fewer jobs also encourages more savings and also triggers a spiral.
Which effect dominates (+ve or -ve inflation) depends on other factors, but both ways are a spiral of economic pain.
2. What? This is specifically about which is worse, how can you not make this type of comparison?
> $nominal_interest + $inflation
Should either be:
> $nominal_interest - $inflation
Or:
> $nominal_interest + $deflation