I think you are on to the truth of the matter, but I don't think "asset based inflation" is the conventional wisdom.

I very much view this as an intergenerational financial war, the Boomers (and Greatest) on the Millennials and X.

Oh, lovely. No, that's not it. Asset-based inflation is very much the better answer because that's how exponential things play out. Low interest rates stop (mild) inflation from bleeding off asset bubbles, so people do that because there's no risk.

To the extent that Baby Boomers foemented low interest rates and low inflation ( although that's arguable too - the 1980s were not exactly peak Boomer years - see the 1990s for that to really take shape ) you are correct, but it's really just collateral damage. When you make this much more money sitting on land for umpety years until its developed, that's the business culture you'll end up with.

Throw in the effect of 401k plans dragging everybody into the stock market and you get an even fuller picture.

A lot of Boomers are really boned. Like, poor. More than is commonly written about.

ObDisclosure: I am a cusp baby between the Boomers and GenX, early '60s model.

It is a generational wealth transfer. But when boomers die, they're generally leaving that wealth to millenials, aren't they? Except that the boomers also have a lot of debt.

It is not generational wealth transfer, it is wealth transfer from the poor/middle class to the rich.

It just so happens a lot of the 'rich' are boomers and not rich are millennials, but that's current happenstance.

That would depend very much on how the wealth is consumed I would guess. If it is used to finance vacations to Mexico and throw away imported consumer goods, that wealth will be lost. If it was used to build nice cities and finance great art, it would be preserved.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it was used to build nice cities and finance great art.