Yeah he had the right message but not the correct delivery for the audience. And I also agree with your other comment that he should have hinted at it rather than gone into an explicit defense of it. He framed himself on the back foot and forced himself into a situation where he was defending it. What he should have done is setup a framing that forced the audience to defend the idea of holding value in money that the govt can print endlessly, showed how nightmarish a set wage/salary is in an inflationary environment, and then talked about the massive counterparty risks in investing and how easily that unravels.

Then he should have targeted the IDEA that we need a better money and posed to the audience, “If you are thinking about how much money you want to make, without thinking of the nature and type of money you are making, the future will not be kind to you.” Then left it open.