If this were true, Zimbabwe would have a lucrative stockmarket. It's not true though. A high enough inflation rate damages investor confidence and makes business operations more complex. I means constantly needing to minimize cash on hand in the local currency, or having to price contracts in inflation adjusted dollars increasing risk and mental overhead of doing business. At extremis, it means many market participants refusing to do business in the currency at all. Large economies like Germany have gone to the printers before and it doesn't end well.
This is true when viewing from an external currency. If I only care about the nominal value of the S&P500 or the nominal price of oil/copper/steel/aluminum/Gold in dollars. Then the nominal price can inflate indefinitely.
Historically no one has been able to inflate assets, without inflating the real economy. If the Fed's QE approach is having this effect then even as a dollar spender you would want to hold assets above all else.
Contracts and price tags of things you buy are also is nominal dollars. When they change daily, it becomes extremely frustrating for consumer or producers to manage the overheads of these price swings.
This also depends on whether asset price inflation trickles into the real economy. Historical examples where asset prices were multiple orders of magnitude beyond the earning capability of workers include feudalism.
From a pure economics standpoint it's feasible to have a society where only some people can afford an asset, and everyone else pays a comparatively small fee to rent the asset roughly equivalent to their entire disposable income. This is a pretty terrible system overall where assets are allocated to those with money and ROI is bounded by the amount that can be. extracted from a servitude class.
The point of this example is that we should not constrain our economic concerns to simple hyper-inflation, as that can mislead us into thinking that as long as we aren't observing consumer price inflation we can print money indefinitely.
