I have an issue with your item #2: inflation stimulates spending and that is how economy survives. This is a Keynesian theory, which, however, inaccurately switches cause and the outcome.
Lets assume, for the sake of the argument, that there is no inflation, there is a predictable interest rate and the people can save it.
If people can save it, there will be a market for deposits countered for the market to borrow the capital. People could expect predictable interest rate, and those who wanted to borrow could expect a place where to go and get a business loan.
Those who could get the business loan would actually have to spend it, using their best abilities, weighing all the risks, so that to minimize the risk of loss, maximize the net added value of the project and the benefit to the entrepreneur.
So here is the contrast:
- In an inflationary economy money is spent by the most inefficient player - government. Other than the government people would probably be less inclined to invest in long term projects.
- in a stable economy, with negligible (say zero) inflation rate, people actually save money (the capital). Only the best projects get investment and there is a low probability to mal-investment (such as bridge to nowhere in Alaska).
If someone will say that low inflation is not workable, I can say that prior to WW1 UK, Spain's, Russia's money were pegged to gold, and their economies were growing. 2% interest rate on deposits was considered a healthy return.