> BTC is obviously an asset...
Hold on now. Nobody seems to agree on that.
I can't figure out why it's not fair, though. All that matters with asset prices is whether they go up or down, not their absolute value. The whole point of assets is they go up. Your complaint is they, what, went up "too fast" or that you weren't in when they did?
> ...for me as a millennial it matters a lot that real estate price in central Europe are today 2x compared to what they were 10 years ago.
Well, inflation accounts for I suspect a whole lot of that. Inflation since 2010 is just shy of 20% for the USD. I'm unfamiliar with central European pricing so I can't comment on that specifically, however it might surprise you to know that in the US, on an inflation-adjusted dollars per square foot basis, houses cost exactly the same as they did in the 1970s. They're just twice as big now. [1]
> ...also rent is mostly not reflected correctly in CPIs.
In what way?
[1] https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-squa...
OOH stands for owner-occupied housing. I am aware of the fact that the US accounts far better for housing expenses in its CPI than Eurozone countries do.
Their issue right now is they're tracking towards 0.44%, not 2% as they intend. Their goal is to increase inflation towards 2%.
> All this money printing will end up in inflation at one point, which is also the only way to ever repay all that debt.
This is a common misconception among armchair economists (and a great point against Bitcoin, too). The issue we're facing right now is that the velocity of money has been reduced, causing deflationary pressure (not inflation). This is typical in recessionary environments, and not at all desirable. Satoshi's will notwithstanding.
Further, as long as the expansion of the broader economy outpaces the growth in deficit it doesn't actually need to be paid back. Also, more than half of US debt is domestically held.