From the article:
"If I give you a dollar for a burger, then I've lost a dollar and gained a burger, and you've gained a dollar and lost a burger. Assuming this was a fair trade (that dollars and burgers are of approximately equal value), then as a result of the transaction we've simply rearranged who has which good, and no additional value was created in the process. What I've lost you've gained and vice versa, so that the total value between us has not changed after the exchange is over."
I can see how a person would think that, but it's not really correct. If that was true then nobody would have any reason to hold either dollars or burgers or whatever; we'd constantly trade them for one another since they are of literally equal value. Who cares which $10 bill they have in their wallet? Nobody since $10 is $10 is $10. Hell, most people don't even care if it's $10 or 2x $5 or $5 and 5x $1, so long as they don't need singles for the vending machine.
But we don't see that kind of behavior in the economy, which leads us to the conclusion that when people exchange things they're not exchanging things of equal value. They are of nominally equal value, which leads to there being a price. But if they were truly of equal value then the guy selling a burger is making $0 profit (something he is unlikely to do) and the guy buying a burger technically isn't any better off either. Why would two people make an exchange where neither is better off? In aggregate they wouldn't even if there are some exceptional cases where they would.
When people exchange things they are trading something which subjectively to them is of equal or lesser value than the thing they are getting. That also explains why people buy just one burger instead of ALL the burgers. When someone is hungry it shifts their subjective valuation of burgers higher and money lower; once satisfied their preferences shift back to "normal" and they stop buying burgers.
An economy already has value creation "baked in" because when people exchange things they only do so when it increases total satisfaction. People tend not to make trades which decrease satisfaction or merely hold it equal. The transaction cost helps ensure that is the case.
Everything else equal before the trade satisfaction was X, after the trade it was X + Y. Y is the amount of increased satisfaction that prompted one or both parties to engage in the trade. Now obviously someone could argue that Y is negative but that doesn't hold water. People don't buy things that are "too expensive" or "crappy" or whatever you'd like to call it.
I will concede that my argument might seem tautological. I might even agree. In the absence of a third party with a gun I can't see how or why two people would choose to enter into a trade that don't benefit at least one of them, and probably both.