Well, I'd argue that even a low, 2% inflation, would have an effect on the economy. Maybe one company got the loan it needed to keep his doors open - it doesn't have to be something big, in fact it cannot be big. It might be that governments (specially democracies with its urge to seek immediate results) find that too little, but if a 2% inflation could lead to a 0,1% extra economic growth, this would mean a 10% increase in economic output after a century, which is not nothing (okay, with a ludicrous 700% inflation).

Maybe the bubble on specific sectors has more to do with the immediateness intrinsic to democratic regimes than with actual Keynesian economics?

Maybe if it weren't for it, it could be possible to have an everlasting steady bubble instead of a series of bubble bursts?

But I cannot argue with one of your closing arguments: inflation takes away the rewards of saving and choosing investiments wisely. An increase of consumption goods instead of capital goods could indeed be disastrous.

To that, I must throw in the towel. I'll take back my flimsy arguments. Thanks for the trouble of knocking them out.