Your position seems to be "why not 100% equities", or "why not 120%, or 150%" as over time, aka leverage ... equities have in fact beaten every other asset class [in the long run]. The reason we don't do this, is risk. "everyone knows in the long run, equities outperform fixed income/bonds". Indeed.
The difference between "in the long run" and a risk-averse FI/ERE portfolio is not being in the situation where a market downturn has shattered your plans.
An individual may be perfectly happy with 100% equities [indeed, as a 1999 investor in tech most likely was as well], that doesnt mean such a high allocation has any superior advantage in mitigating risk.
"The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"
The problem is: there is no way to backtest your particular FI/ERE/portfolio. All you can do is remove undo risk. This is actually pretty easy to quantify.
perhaps google efficient frontier portfolio allocation , risk management, etc.
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1005has an interesting convo on the topic. Only for very young investors (20s) would 90% equities ever really make sense. Note how backtesting shows that 90% equities has never lied on the efficient frontier in the 20th century.
Funny thing about volatility, and comparing that to expected returns over a lifetime.
My crystal ball doesn't tell me what future inflation rate(s) will be, unfortunately. However portfolios that include TIPs are quite prepared for such a thing.
Not sure whose study you are quoting as inflation killing most portfolios, everything I've read suggests that its investor behavior: buying high, selling low, etc., failing to match market performance in their equities, etc
For someone perhaps that "early retires", but is actually still working [like I guess everyone on this forum], sure, high equities can probably work [say up to 75%], JMHO.