You got the investment part right, but the rest was horribly overly simplistic nonsense.

If a farmer raises bananas to supply 10 people, but there are only 9 people who want them his cost of production is not diminished, so his price will remain the same. If 11 people want them he may take bids on the crop and realize some additional return, but he also risks the higher return causing competitors to jump into the game and taking far more from him than just one customer. His best bet is to increase production to satisfy the largest market share he can manage and sell at the lowest cost that allows a fair return.

The amount of money in the possession of the potential customers has no relevance to the price of his product in the long run. However, if the potential number of customers is cut in half because they don't have sufficient money among them to all purchase his bananas he will find he now only has five customers and must reduce his production and raise his prices to compensate for the lost volume. Too little demand can create price inflation faster than any amount of money in the system. One can only eat so many bananas, regardless of how wealthy they are.

The money supply can cause inequities, but cannot cause inflation in any direct proportion to its increase. This is especially true when not all consumers share that supply equally and bananas are not a requirement of sustaining life, which your examples assumed. People can, and will, decide not to purchase bananas if the price is too high, and there is always potential competition waiting to pounce on profitable markets in a true free market system.