"Supply Shock" vs. "Monetary Loosening"

       In 2021, inflation (understood to mean a rise in prices) began to rise sharply. One explanation of this phenomenon is that supply shocks (decrease in supply of goods) were responsible. That makes sense---less supply = higher price on a supply-demand graph. The other explanation was that the addition of new money (increase in supply of money) led to the inflation. That also makes sense. So is there any way of knowing which explanation is correct?

     Well, of course, both explanations could be correct. Both supply shock and monetary loosening could have been at work simultaneously to create the humongous inflation of recent years. However, I think the following can also be said: if supply shock were the only factor, one would expect that prices would return to pre-shock values. Granting that some degree of supply shock probably occurred, if prices don't return to pre-shock levels, then that is attributable to increase in the supply of money.

          Right?

Social Justice

What does "social justice" mean?

At first glance, it appears to  be a redundancy. Without a "society" (even consisting of only two people), the problem of "justice" simply doesn't arise. Isn't "social" the adjectival form of "society?"

Apparently not. Here's a definition of social justice pulled from the internet:

Social justice is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. In Western and Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive their due from society. In the current movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets, and economic justice. Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity.

First off, I notice that social justice entails distribution of property. "Distribution" seems to imply some super-social agency (group of people) who are empowered to determine who gets what. This would be in contrast to the organic results of the free market based on a propertarian justice system. 

How is social justice to be achieved? The methods listed are as follows:

1. Social insurance---the forcible inclusion of people in a social insurance scheme that entails taxation (i.e. the appropriation of property).

2. Public health---the forcible maintenance via taxation (i.e. the appropriation of property) of certain people as determiners of what scientific theories are to be considered "true" with the eventual goal of forcing people to obey their prescriptions.

3. Taxation---the levelling of incomes to produce more equality (accomplished by appropriation of property).

4. Public school---forced attendance at state schools maintained by taxation (i.e. appropriation of property).

5. Public services---forced use of public services paid for by taxation (i. e. appropriation of property).

6. Labor Law---forced adherence to legislated or administratively determined rules related to exchanges of property (i.e. goods and labor).

7. Regulation of Markets---forced adherence to legislated or administratively determined rules related to exchanges of property (i.e. goods and labor).

What is the key concept behind social justice? It seems to be that property rights will be abrogated. But this is the opposite of the meaning of justice!

Social justice = injustice.