Economic growth comes from a production base that produces more goods/services than previously existed, and more consumption of those goods/services, not from more money in the system. If you print a trillion extra dollars and release it into the economy, the only thing you've done is created inflation, you haven't grown the economy at all.
This is true in a fundamental sense, but often untrue in a technical sense, if the system is manipulated by the elites (as it always is.)
When a lot of money is created out of thin air, many behaviors change. People tend to consume now rather than later. This tends to drive up the prices of commodities and other productive assets too, and so will generate an investment boom as well. The entire set of supply and demand is distorted, generally to the benefit of the elites. (There will be more choices in luxuries, providing less stable employment for the average person.) And this entire bubble can last for a while. In a technical sense, 'growth' does happen.
But of course this is not the growth we want. This is the growth we have, because the elites like it that way.
The only way inflation doesn't occur is when the rate of monetary expansion matches the rate of natural economic expansion. Because that is practically impossible to achieve, the Fed's stated goal is inflation of 2%...
This is 'impossible to achieve' only because we have a rigged system. This would be the natural, free market based, steady state, in general and over the long term, absent the rigging. (Either that, or a harmless, gentle, and expected deflation over the long term.)
It strikes me that you really should be intelligent enough to see what I'm trying to say. That you don't even answer my main points raises questions as to why you're here at all.
I've answered your points just fine, you just ignore them and your answer for everything when you've got no real answer is something about global conspiracy theories. That's not my weakness, it's yours.
The market does not create money in equal proportion to real economic growth. Or at least, if that's your assertion, you're going to explain how that's possible. As money is an artificial construct and doesn't exist naturally, all value assigned by man in a society is also an artificial construct. We collectively determine what is valuable, and exchange that item for other things that are valuable. Absent fiat, traditionally gold has filled that role for historical and scarcity purposes. But at no time was the production of new gold ever magically matched to real economic growth so that the value of gold remained constant. That's what you just said would be the natural state of things 'absent the rigging,' which doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps there's a global conspiracy theory that could explain it...