You haven't understood the issue. The issue is involuntary dilution created by fractional reserve banking. When a new loan is created, the bank and (especially) the borrower benefit from the increased money supply. That increased money supply dilutes everyone else. The rich get loans to pay for college, buy houses, expensive cars, and own stock in companies that use leverage to grow faster, whereas the poor get loans to buy mobile homes and cheap cars. Overall, the poor wage earners experience a net dilution compared to the rich.
But isn't that money multiplier due to fractional-reserve banking essentially a one-shot deal, and doesn't continue to expand over long time periods?
So if banks keep 10% in reserves, then a cash deposit gets multiplied by 1/.1 = 10 times, and that factor does not grow with time. Even if there were no law against continually lowering reserve ratios (and therefore increasing this multiplier), the market would tend to create a bound, for otherwise the bank would have greater risk of collapse from runs and unexpected loan defaults.
By contrast, if the central bank (Fed) keeps increasing its balance sheet (by buying assets using money it created from thin air), we have continual growth in the money supply (since the folks who sold the assets have new money in their accounts, granted magically by the central bank).
In fact, if we had a law that banned fractional-reserve banking for all commercial banks, so that all commercial banks had to have 100% / full reserves, eliminating your dilution, the central bank could still perform open market operations and buy assets with printed money, and thereby continue to increase the money supply. Full reserve for private/commercial banks is still compatible with money printing by a central bank.
So I know fractional-reserve gets a lot of heat by sound money folks, but the continual inflation observed since the 70s is not primarily a fractional-reserve problem, but a central bank money printing problem.
