> So, the article says dotcoms caused first bubble in 2000, houses in 2008, but this one is driven by central banks printing money. And there is no way they will stop printing so this is an infinite bubble
> There is sooo much wrong with that
Well, for one thing, its not true. In the US, for instance, the Fed stopped QE in 2014, and has not only stopped QE but raised interest rate targets slightly since.
Central bank policy -- like the economic indicators that drive it -- tends to be cyclical, not infinite positive feedback. This has been a long and particularly intense period of loose monetary policy (largely, because governments, especially the USG, have completely been asleep at the switch in terms of fiscal policy response to the economic situation, relying more heavily than is sane on central banks and monetary policy), but there is very little to think that the usual cyclical drivers won't work the way they normally do.
(Of course, that won't actually pop asset prices in general -- though it may result in a shift across asset classes -- since the cyclical drivers of tighter monetary policy are exactly the same things that drive high general asset prices without a loose-money driver.)
> As @rtpg says, that s stops not when Fed stops printing money but when market realises that the high asset prices "globally" become obviously unsustainable.
Which, if those prices were high nominal prices driven by the Fed printing money such that the supply of money vs. that of other assets was ever expanding, would actually require the Fed to stop printing money, because as long as it continued to do that (and as long as people believed it would continue to do that), high asset prices would be sustainable.
(Conversely, if people believed that the Fed would stop, but would only do so because of the existence of some other driver supporting asset value, then even with the money-printing-presses stopped asset values would be maintainable.)