There are many ways to re-engineer the system to lead to better outcomes. Say you gave everyone twice what we are giving them now. But that extra 50%, you don't give them that as income, but instead as money that can be spent on certain kinds of investment. Not commodities, food, finance, or real-estate. What sort of outcomes would that cause in the system? The standard argument for giving people any sort of wealth is, well that causes inflation. That only causes inflation only because of the way the money is used. If it is used different it can cause innovation and better distribution of wealth.

Those things are all fungible, and thus can be exchanged for cash. This would only introduce friction, not prevent inflation.

I don't see how they are fungible. At the end of the day the people are investors. They invest in a real company that carries out real business. Is that business any of those listed above? If not, then yes you can invest, if not no you can not invest. Obviously the investors would at some point see a return on their income. And you simply don't give them the returns. You put the returns back in the same fund. You can get that money back when you are 65 to pass to your children. You can only get back a certain amount, depending on the number of children, enough to pay for their schooling and a home. That way everyone has an education and a home, and the banksters don't get rich off mortgages and loans. The residual the government can keep for social programs or something as such.