You are now using word play to deflect the strawman you created. The claim here is that Fiat currency, by increasing the availability of money available, increases the ease of transanctions which lead to increase in wealth and it is NOT fiat currency creates wealth. Of course, wealth will be created with or without fiat currency but the school of thought is that fiat currency accelerates the process of wealth creation.
For ex., exhaust fan increases the amount of convection in the air and helps increase air circulation and hence improve the atmostphere by removing the hot air and so improve in the breathing air in a crowded room. Here Fiat currency is the fan. You are equating the fan improves the breathing conditions in the rooms with - fans cause the respiration to happen in the first place
Now, your original claim was that the economists believing in Fiat currency by believe that Fiat currency itself creates wealth. No economist who believes in fiat currency believes that. They believe fiat currency is a catalyst in generation of wealth and not really the substance involved in producing it. Your claim would make their stand look as though they think fiat currency as a reactant in and of itself and that fiat currency itself causes the reaction. It does not nor do they believe that as you claimed. So you are arguing against a position they dont even have- strawman argument