We don't have much of a disagreement, just nuances.
We've been giving more and more money [to] the "too much money" side for 47 years now.
Yes, that's what 'printing money' beyond desired rate of inflation is about. That doesn't mean that these money were unproductive or deployed in bad assets or investments - most of them were probably used well and appreciated. It takes money and knowledge and patience to make money - that's the difference between "investor class" and "spending / non-investing class."
As for "too few goods" we can take housing as an example. Real estate prices have gone up everywhere compared to a few years ago:
Yes, that's one of the "hard" "asset classes" the investor class likes to invest in - for the most part it outpaces the rate of inflation, in some areas more than others - and as I pointed out, it was one of several clear indications of "monetary stimulus" being overinvested and inevitably leading to inflation spilling into "real life" - that's essential Milton Friedman, same as it was in 2006-2008. Stock market peaked in 2006, housing market somewhat later, both way before "Lehman moment" in 2008, for those who paid any attention.
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."
That makes sense - money makes money; better education (bought by money) often leads to better business and personal ties, corporate positions and better investment decisions.
One caveat about "top 20%" (super-rich, very rich, VHNWI, HNWI, and upper middle class) - in the US they are not static, they are very dynamic, especially in the era of rapid high technology and societal changes, i.e., composition of today's 20% may be very different from "top 20%" 10 years ago, and only a few names in common with "top 20%" of 20 years ago. Many of the names even in top 1% would not be known or recognized 10, 15, 20 years ago. At the same time some fall out of 20% due to bad investments or bad economy or mismanagement or bad luck - take investors in Revlon which declared bankruptcy today, or many people / companies who overleveraged before COVID19 hit... So "top 20%" are a lot more fluid than what statistic usually imply - a static group of people.
But in this case, Putin's non-ESG military action is as big a counterproductive policy as anything Biden has done.
Biden didn't start inflation, but he certainly helped it along with his own stimulative policies without regard to inflation and top-notch economists, with some of whom he has worked closely when he was VP. Inflation has already been raging for awhile due to host of reasons, including energy costs - that's just one of the reasons Putin chose the moment to invade - he has what people / countries need because their energy inputs are not diversified - not by class / use, nor by supplier - that's by the way, the danger of let's say only depending on electricity for everything, even if we could do this overnight instead of decades building infrastructure, with hydro, solar, nuclear composites. To Biden's credit, he responded reasonably well, though haltingly and often not aggressively enough, to Putin's War.
Yes, Putin's War did pour gasoline / oil (pardon the pun) on already bad inflation, but it didn't create it - that's a secondary supply shock, in addition to extremely loose monetary policy and "de-globalization" started by Trump (prompted by Putin, no doubt) with self-defeating and self-taxing tariffs on China goods and pushing China towards Russia and closing even more to US goods and cooperation.
Big Oil is doing the transition Big Tobacco did, buying up food companies and establishing a lifeline in a less publicly hated industry.
Why is that bad? If we ever not need oil, gas as forms of energy (even though several of energy companies are working on "clean" fuels) then it would be productive conversion of capital.