Which of my two claims is not true? Why should stock rise more than basic necessities? Of course, all prices would rise a lot. But I think stocks would rise by a smaller factor.
Ah sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was talking about your second claim - that giving people lots of money would redistribute a fixed proportion of wealth from the rich to the poor. My point was that the rich have most of their wealth in stocks and the like, so the redistribution would only affect the cash portion of their wealth, which is quite small.
