"I think you are saying wealth is created by the production of money."
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying when more money is spent by consumers in the economy, it increases demand for goods and services, and when that increased demand is satisfied through increased production, that ought to result in the creation of more wealth.
Now, I suppose if you don't think (capitalist) businesses are (typically) in the business of creating wealth in the first place, then you can disagree. If doing business doesn't create wealth, then doing more shouldn't change that.
"That's what got the world economy overloaded with massive debts."
The Debt to GDP ratio was far worse in the 17th and 18th centuries, so I don't really believe in this notion of "overloaded."
Presuming you're referring to the Great Recession, I don't agree it was the "world economy" that got overloaded with massive debts, it's just that a very large amount of debt was created by institutions which also operate in the much more mundane day-to-day financial reality of operating a bank, and that left them without enough ready cash to operate as banks. Calling it the "world economy" is a lazy dodge.
"Initially it produces economic growth until the debts mount to such massive levels where they choke off capital spending"
Yeah, no, that is not what happened. What happened was it rose to such massive levels that it choked off liquidity.
"In a viable economy capital comes from savings. When consumers withhold spending, they make more capital available to producers."
I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
Is capitalism a viable economy?
Is capitalism the only viable economy?
Is anarchy an economic system in its own right, or is it just laissez-faire capitalism?