"As long as money, and stocks, bonds, derivatives and every other tertiary claim, are in a rough balance with real wealth, then everything is fine. But history is littered with times when this balance got seriously out of whack, as it is today, and the defining feature of those times was what is usually called 'wealth destruction."
I agree, tertiary wealth creation is SO out of line with real wealth, and it's snowballing, a paper blizzard ultimately worth practically nothing. But one thing missing from the equation is the fact that primary wealth is finite, inter-related, and alive. If you kill the golden goose, whether that means carbon dioxide and methane glut or overfishing the oceans or strip mining mountainsides, eventually the primary wealth isn't worth anything and all of it comes crashing down.
Thinking a little more on this, tertiary wealth based on nothing is dangerous. But living in a world with the physical capacity to force a conversion of primary wealth far beyond what the system can sustain, a process with apparently no incentive or ability to regulate its appetite is, ultimately, even more dangerous, it's fatal.