By that viewpoint, the people of 1930's Germany and present-day Zimbabwe became incredibly wealthy due to the hyper-inflation of their money supply.
A generally accepted definition of wealth is:
In economics and business, wealth (or net worth) of a person or nation is the value of assets owned net of liabilities owed (to foreigners in the case of a nation) at a point in time.Increasing the national debt decreases the national wealth, when that debt is owed to foreign entities (to a large extent, China)
By Mr. Stark’s assertion, your comments about Germany and Zimbabwe are correct, if we see the money supply as equal to “wealth”...
The problem is wealth is actually tied to assets and production, not the mere printing of money.
You, along with others on this thread are using the word “debt” too broadly compared to Mr. Stark. He is referring to the debt created when we ask the Federal Reserve to lend us a dollar. Not debt as money owed to other countries, not debt as interest or unfunded liabilities.
In this sense, his words are correct and factual, therefore presenting a great opportunity for the interviewer to skewer him on the how our present system is un-Constitutional and gives tremendous power to a few at the expense of the People.
The interviewer fails because the interviewer does not know what “debt” is as used by Mr. Stark, or chooses to not press Mr. Stark in a productive manner on this issue.