That kind of economics gained popularity in the 1970s, when inflation caused genuine hardship. It left a kind of economic PTSD -- especially among people who have money, because inflation erodes the value of savings. The response is a trickle-down economics, where the best way to help the poor is to ensure that the rich have lots of money so that they can give poor people jobs.
So the Internet is full of "But inflation!" and often "But hyperinflation!", usually based on an argument from the first two weeks of economics class where you're shown supply and demand curves. But economics classes go past two weeks. There's a lot more to it than that, and the data simply don't support that argument. The fact is that consumer inflation is very low, and has been for a long time, despite intensive intervention from the central banks.
It is more complicated, and there has been inflation -- most notably in the stock market, and to a lesser degree in other assets (including real estate and cryptocurrency). The stock market has inflated to ludicrous levels, not just in tech assets but as a whole. But not at the consumer level, for a variety of reasons -- a lot of things have become cheaper to produce, and despite tax cuts for the wealthy wages haven't gone up. The wealthy don't eat more or live in more houses with that money, so they're not competing all that much for regular consumer goods. They take all that extra money and buy stocks -- trading them to each other rather than actually starting new businesses.
Anyway, that's what he's arguing against. It should shortcut a whole line of knee-jerk "but inflation!" arguments. But it's been true for decades, and this isn't a new observation, so it doesn't really change anything.