To my mind the elephant in the room with this is fixed interest debt. If all financing were equity financing (so someone lending money got a profit share from the enterprise they financed) then I could see what you mean BUT with fixed interest debt, I agree with Gumby that on a macro scale, debt burdens don't adjust in value and so when ever prices adjust downwards, debt burdens crush the economy. I think that is why long term lasting sound money systems have required very strong anti usery prohibitions except when military conquests, colonies etc have been providing an source of tremendous expansion.You may be surprised by the idea that any level of money supply is sufficient to support vibrant economic exchange so long as prices and interest rates are allowed to adjust. The problem is that they seldom are.
I think it is crucial not to confuse real economic expansion and financial expansion. Just think about the countries around the Baltic when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 or whenever. Finland, Sweden and Denmark were much wealthier than Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in real terms for everyone. If you have computor companies making labour saving, desirable computors, pharma companies genuinely curing disease, steel companies that are well managed and produce more steel, safer and with less energy etc etc, then everyone is better off. Lets call those attributes "real economy wealth". As TBV says, all of those attributes can in principle be gained or lost with no change in nominal wealth if prices adjust. By contrast nominal wealth can increase massively in CPI adjusted terms with no increase in "real economy wealth". After independence, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia took advice from economists from Harvard and Chicago and went all out to get increasing financial wealth without bothering about "real economy wealth". If you use taxes purely to limit CPI inflation and free up financial capital formation from tax burden, then the prices of pre-existing assets can inflate. Making more loans to use for further bidding up of asset prices alows greater expansion of financial wealth. At some point the economy won't be able to find the interest payments for the mountain of loans so a crisis will ensue. BUT potentially the government/central bank can step in and deficit spend as fast as the financial system can skim off that money. In that way they can keep the snow ball rolling.
So basically it is possible (we are seeing) a system where "real economy wealth" is decoupled from financial wealth increases. You can go from an economy where everyone is paid say the equivalent of 300 loaves of bread a week and an "owning class" has assets worth 1M loaves of bread for each member of the "owning class" to one where everyone is still paid "300 loaves of bread a week" but each member of the "owning class" now has assets worth 1B loaves of bread and gets a compounding return on capital from all of those assets.
My argument is that such increases in financial wealth decoupled from real economy wealth distort the real economy and actually prevent increases in real wealth. Talents and resources that could be deployed to increase real economy wealth instead get diverted towards expanding such ficticious financial wealth. Basically the private sector gets subverted into being a deficit harvesting financial machine that fails to meet the needs of the population. The government becomes embroiled with both trying to fix the gaps now left by what the private sector neglects to do and also a forlorn attempt to fill in a financial black hole.