(1) and (2) in your examples are quite different:
Example (1) is what most people consider VOM. If we really think about it, total money supply does not increase through these transactions themselves. In fact, it decreases! You earn $10, $3 is witheld from you by tax; you spend the remaining $7 on a new pen, $0.5 is lost to sales tax, assuming the store pays $4 out of that remaing $6.50 to the supplier, another $0.8 is lost to income tax. Now we are down to $4 for the pen maker, assuming he is not making any money at all in this lousy economy (LOL), his entire $4 spent on $2 for material and rent, $2 for employees . . . another $0.3 is lost due to payroll tax, 0.12 to property tax . . . etc. etc. as you can see, in economic transactions, due to the ever-present taxation in our economy, money supply shrinks every step along the way of division of labor/specialization! That's one of the evils of taxation.
Example (2) is a set of financial transactions that create money out of thin air. In other words, both the borrower and the lender simultaneously think they have the same money, the money illusion.
Examples (1) and (2) are linked together in real life when entreprenuers take out loans to finance business expansion because of he expectes the increasing business volume to continue. This is why I said, to the Keynesian mind, it's the velocity of monetary expansion not velocity of money that matters; velocity of money (economic transactions) is only a means to an end: expansion of money supply when the entreprenuer takes out loans to expand business.
Example (3) is functionally no different from government taxation taking money out of circulation. Why is taxation necessary? It's there to limit your purchasing power so that the government cronies receiving the money coming off the print press can have purchasing power. Your putting away your money does not freeze up the economy at all; it just makes money in other people's hands more valuable. Economy only slows down if other businesses do not respond to that sudden increase in the value of money accordingly. No new money is needed to finance other transactions. Governments do not print money and distribute them in proportion to what money each person already has, so it is not neutral rising water lifting all boats.
When you decide to spend or save money, you are expressing your own relative values and priorities, in competition and compromise with others deciding how limited resources is to be allocated. When the government prints money and give it to someone, it makes a hash of economics. For example, when SUV's were desirable, the government paid people to get in the way of SUV production; now that SUV's are no longer desirable, the government is paying people to make them and pile them up! Environment be damned.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
