1. If a tremendous amount of currency, gold-backed or otherwise, were placed in the hands of currency exchangers, and this currency dwarfed the amount of holdings of all status quo savers or income of workers, what would happen? For starters, salaries would also have to be reset or no one would work. This in turn resets prices. Savers would complain and since their numbers vastly exceed exchangers, which group do you think governments would support (or would they simply confiscate the wealth of both)? But more importantly, money is power. The only situation in which an established government would tolerate this situation is if those currently with power (the current moneyed oligarchy) bought currency for their personal benefit...and they in fact do already have funds that in turn dwarf those of 99% of exchangers...so power does not migrate to a new group. Therefore, given their volume of investable resources, this situation could move from a situation where under 100 people control most of world currency to one in which these same people control 99% of world currency.
2. The amount of gold or currency in existence will not affect the amount of resources available to build anything to improve Life. That is only done by putting people to work. If there are rewards associated with this, such as good salaries for a middle class or the ability for entrepreneurs to become wealthy using free enterprise (employing a vibrant competition in which failures are bankrupted and the successful win), then improvements will occur. If instead there is a world of servitude, directed from elite heights, one cannot expect much if anything. Elites tend to employ their friends to do things, regardless of productivity, which ruins the ability of competing entities to generate excellence (like expecting greatness from a sports team when it is the only one).
3. The amount of humanitarian or infrastructure projects directed by government or by individuals, investing in profitless activities, would mostly simply "throw bread upon the waters". Societies improve their standards relative to the amount of capital investment. "Relief" is a temporal solution, it only works over time if people move to profit-generating work. "Infrastructure" is useless if enterprise cannot subsequently use the infrastructure to generate value.
4. What is really critical is the notion that since "a rising tide floats all boats" the current holders of power would be much more happy and secure in a world where free enterprise was unleashed (their personal boats would shine not to mention they would be beloved). Even if the wealth of the world was much more thoroughly spread around, there would be a lot more good things to enjoy, and those at the top would be a lot more secure in enjoying these things than they are now. As it is, they hold a great deal of world wealth that far, far exceeds their ability to enjoy it (accruing more "money" will really not benefit them). Do they want to fund the savings and loans, and make others happy as well, or to build Pottervilles (as in It's A Wonderful Life)? This is really a moral (as well as a Darwinian) "moment" in the history of civilization. As a planet, will we have a system that promotes fair competition, or will those who only think of tipping the scale in their own direction, with no desire to create anything worthwhile, predominate? Many of the people who have been "tipping the scale" are very talented and have immense ability to create....can they...will they?
What is Money vs. Currency: https://goldsilver.com/hidden-secrets/
What is Free Enterprise: https://mises.org
Etheric Blue Post: http://inteldinarchronicles.blogspot.com/2016/10/be-prepared-guest-post-by-ethericblue.html