A demand for a good is not a demand for a particular good as such but a demand for the services that the good provides. For instance, an individual demands food because food provides nourishment. In this case, demand means that the individual wants to consume food—the service that the particular food provides. However, this is not the case with respect to money. According to Rothbard,
Money…is solely useful for exchange purposes. Money, per se, cannot be consumed and cannot be used directly as a producers’ good in the productive process. Money per se is therefore unproductive; it is dead stock and produces nothing.
Money’s main function is simply to fulfill the role of the medium of exchange. By fulfilling this role, money simply facilitates the flow of goods and services between producers and consumers. With the help of money, various goods become more marketable—they can be exchanged for more goods than in a barter economy. What enables this is the fact that money is the most marketable commodity.
Therefore, the reason that an individual has a demand for money is in order to be able to exchange money for other goods and services. Consequently, in this sense, an increase in the supply of money would not be absorbed by a corresponding increase in the demand for money, as would be the case with other goods. For instance, an increase in the supply of apples in response to the increase in the demand for apples is absorbed by the demand (i.e., individuals consume more apples). Thus, the increase in the supply of apples by 5 percent would be absorbed by the increase in the demand for apples by 5 percent.
To but it bluntly: the increase in the supply o money is nothing more than getting something for nothing. This is called theft in most people’s language and is exactly correct. The central bank steals money when it prints more because the supply of money is always adequate for the economy.