> He's constantly saying it's impossible to forecast exactly when the bottom will drop out. Just that it will if we continue down QE infinity.
Sure, if we continue QE when the conditions on which QE is premised go away, that would be expected to produce potentially substantial inflation. But the reason QE is continuing is the existence of precisely the conditions (with regard to extensions of credit and resulting demand) that indicate that QE will not cause inflation. Were those situations to end, QE would be terminated, since the entire reason that QE is being done would no longer exist.
> That seems sensible.
To the extent that it is sensible, it is irrelevant to the real world, since the policy isn't "QE forever ignoring actual conditions relevant to inflation". To the extent that it is a criticism of actual real-world policy, it is not sensible.
> How can endless money printing end in anything but inflation?
Quite easily.
First, money printing can fail to lead to increases in the effective money supply if banks destroy money but not extending credit as existing credit is paid off in a quantity which offsets the increase in the money supply that would be expected due to printing. (This is basically the QE situation.)
Second, even beyond that, expanding the money supply that is actually chasing goods and services isn't expected to lead to inflation if the rate at which the supply expands is less than or equal to the rate at which new goods and services for it to chase are created. So, depending on the rate of money creation, increases to the money supply can continue forever without any expectation of inflation. (This is why, if you don't want deflation and don't have declining production, you need some money supply growth under normal conditions.)