With (c) stock prices are generally tied to the underlying value of a company which is protection from losing value due to inflation except in rare cases where the inflation directly harms the business model. Assuming the inflation continues to increase over time, you just buy the stocks as soon as you get the money, there is no need to do it "before the inflation" or any sense in which stocks can be "already inflated."
CPIH in the UK for example includes the cost of housing but the weighting of housing is effectively an average of a teenager, a mid life family and a pensioner. It comes out at like 20% weight which is well under what most people spend on housing.
Because wages don't go up in real time so you get robbed of the difference for the duration.
You make $3. Rent costs $1. You have $2 leftover to improve your life, pay down debt, whatever.
You make $3. Rent is now $1.50. You have $.50 leftover
Your wage goes up to $3.50. Rent is now $2. You have $.50 leftover.
Repeat a bunch of times.
Your wage goes up $.50 again. Rent stops rising in price. You have $1 leftover.
See how the inflation robs you of $.50 multiplied by the duration?
Inflation doubles everything
You make $6, rent costs $2, you owe $300, it takes 75 to repay debt
The person so wealthy they lent you money loses out, you gain.
It only feels psychologically worse when you notice food prices going up steadily and you have slightly less left over than you did last month. People will still be mad about that even if actually ahead.
This depends on at least four premises:
a) that your wages at least track with inflation
b) that your expenses (not debt) track less than inflation
c) that you can buy into stocks/bonds before the inflation AND they track at least with inflation
If any of those are untrue, your conclusion falls apart.
If all three are untrue, your expenses are growing faster than your wages and the little you have left over is now buying already-inflated assets.. which we've seen play out once in recent times.