I think we need to keep some things clear in our minds with respect to inflation. Prices, the amount of money in existence, and the amount of money in circulation are all related but separate things, even though practically they get used interchangeably.
If oil costs go up, everything that gets transported–which is pretty much everything–will go up in cost. This is a means of wealth transfer to oil producing companies, if their costs have not gone up, and if their costs have gone up, then it transfers that wealth to those who are charging more. Perhaps they have to look longer, or dig deeper wells, or whatever. The people that do that, are doing well.
When the amount of money in existence goes up, then the people who create it and first spend it benefit most. This would be first and foremost people with first access to Central Banks, but also all banks generally, who create the money they loan.
When the amount of money in circulation goes up, it would seem to there is no net difference. To get the money out of the supply in the first place, people would have to buy dollars at then market value. When they then spend them, they get better deals, since the absence of the money on the market will have caused prices to drop, but on balance this seems to me not a big deal. China, for example, might exchange $10 billion Mao’s for $10 billion. If the yuan is devalued relative to the dollar, they don’t get a great deal.
Certainly, one could take advantage of the ebb and flow of currency exchange rates, like Keynes did personally, but the primary agent of true inflation is in my view related to number two, the banking system.