This is a key point. Growth is a function of advances in technology, management, etc. and in its natural state needs have nothing to do with the monetary system. What state-money has done is to create artificially fast growth, during the inflationary phase of the asset bubble. We are incentivized to buy things we don't really need. When the asset bubble eventually crashes, we have economic pain.
I somewhat agree with you that a monetary system should not create an artificial growth, though this is a separate and very complex topic in itself, with arguments both in favor and against such growth. But how does it challenge my point that the elites are also interested in the common good over the long term?
"The elites are interested in the common good over the long term." -- This is true only to the extent that growth and a better organization of society benefit the very top elites (even if true competition causes harm to some rich and powerful people.) This is because growth is the ultimate support for the value of the money and debt issued by the top elites.
The way you can tell if they're truly interested in the common good is to observe what they do after a financial bust.
Over the modern centuries, financial busts were generally followed by a policy of tightening the money supply. This imposed even more pain on the public, on top of the wealth and jobs lost by the bust, and basically put all of the pain from the financial bubble on the shoulders of the public. The excuse for doing this was to protect the peg of the currency against gold or silver, to guard the 'moral honor' of the elites in being able to redeem their paper with gold or silver. (Or the fiat-period equivalent of this argument.)
But the real reason is to protect their system. If the elites used inflation to lessen the pain to the public, by devaluing currency against gold/silver (or doing the fiat equivalent,) the long-term confidence in their system would be harmed. They benefited most on the way up, but the public suffered on the way down.
The first time the public was powerful and aware enough to change the above partially was the Great Depression in the US. The government eventually devalued against gold by about 50% and used fiscal expansion to lessen the pain. But the core nature of the process never really changed. The elites will always do the minimum required to maintain political stability, even to this day, and the evidence of this is the suffering during the Great Depression and (to a lesser extent) the Great Recession since 2008.
Now, this is not an accusation against any individuals or groups. It's just human nature for anyone in those positions at those times. The key for us to understand is that, the only way to better our lives, fundamentally, is by taking the power of money from the elites.