Interesting question. Ok, back to the basis (when a buiding shake let's examine the basement!).
Money is, IMO, a promise of work. Already done (or to be done in future). I explain.
Every layman's economic book start describing a barter and how is simpler to use an exchange mean as intermediate mean, making the exchange of good more simple (reducing work to find someone who have what you want and look for what you have to exchange, ie reducing intermediating cost).
According with this definition money can be everything. We chose to use "paper" (or electronic impulses) because it is simpler to manage than moving around goods or pieces of gold.
This mean exactly one thing: money exist only as a "promise" of work, already done (for example a home or a car) or to be done (I pay you to build a house or a car, or to give me an advice as a financial advisor).
The main problem here is, IMO, time.
Work is another name for time (we will take in account productivity later).
So if I don't work now that work is lost forever.
Not the same with money as we know it. If I don't use money now, I'm not losing nothing.
With this principle in mind, when people save all together, less people works (less exchanges) and we're losing goods or services we could have had but we hadn't. That work is lost forever (you can't have back that time to use it in future, so that potential work is lost).
To avoid this problem, IMO, money supply have to grow at least as savings grows (assuming velocity of money is costant). We have introduced in the economic system a "control variable", money supply, that should be growing when savings grows or velocity slow down, and should shrink when savings shrinks or velocity speed up (assuming work done is costant at full employment rate and productivity is costant).
IMO, the target should be mantaining work done at full potential value, because it is at that value that we have the maximum output, so the max increment of wealth (how it is divided is not important in this very high fly reasoning, important here is that it is the maximum production of goods and services).
Now, the sad part. According with "economic evolution" of last years, all developed countries allowed raising unemployment rates (more precisely, declining employment rates) and at the same time raising money supply.
I'm not a economist, but seems to me that is a recipe for a disaster.
Less goods and services to be exchanged and more exchange mean in the system. Should mean inflation, that we haven't (yet?) because foreign goods are flooding our countries. But that goods we can not import (as RE) clearly shows that inflation (in my country a low-income home nearly tripled in 10 years, and I read of same, or more, increase in US).
To my understanding, exchange rate between currencies should have adapted to work-exchange between people, but seems there are not (and raising dollar (or CHF) seems to me is working against natural adjustment).
It seems to me that money is treated as it had an intrinsic value -that it hasn't- and this is slowing down adjustments needed to start again production of goods and services.
Any comment?