[RobertoG]

That’s a very strange way of thinking about money. Money is valuable but only in the context of an economy. Your example is true only if the economy didn’t grow that year. You could make the opposite example. You have 100 dollars today and 100 dollars tomorrow but the economy shrinks a 6%, what is the real value of your money?

A most interesting way would be see money as infrastructure. In order the economy to work you need money. In order to it work properly you need the proper quantity of money. Of course we can disagree in what is the proper quantity.

[zo1]

What way should one think of it, if you concede the fact that the "new" money printed doesn't get equally distributed to all the individuals based on their proportion of ownership of the previous total of money supply?

I.e. if there is 1000 floating around, and 2 individuals in the population. Then if the government prints an extra 100, it needs to give 50 to each individual (not 100 to the one, but not the other). Probably not logistically feasible with a large population, but that way you can at least say it's not "theft".