Why is this definitely true? Other economic/societal systems have fallen in the past. Why does that mean this one has to? Or is there some other reason why this statement is true?
I'm not trying to cast doubt upon this idea. I'm just trying to find out its justification, from a scientific perspective.
Cheers.
The distinction is important because debt is how Capitalists actually consolidate their holdings. Leverage lets you increase your rate of profit by borrowing against your existing assets to buy more machines and exploit more workers.. The whole reason for loans is that the person taking the loan can make more money than the interest they pay because they will invest it in various places they think that they can . If interest rates are artificially low, debtors get a "free lunch" in the form of excess returns while creditors (i.e. people with cash or bonds) lose out. Large capital holders don't provide credit unless required to by certain regulations or if the interest rate gets high enough that they can't find places to generate return.
The key distinction is that laborers will have a greater portion of their funds either in a safe bank account or in bonds because everyone needs a certain "cushion" to feel secure/not go bust, so they proportionally lose out as "creditors".
Tell me more about how all the richest and most powerful people in the economy are net debtors rather than net creditors.
Banks and financial services are at the top of the economy, and they have been for a long time.
Banks need people to take out loans to make money. No one will take out a loan if they don't think they can make more than the cost to borrow it. The idea that consumer debt drives accumulation is bunk - if workers go into debt, wages go up or the cost of capital rises to account for defaults, which lowers profitability and lowers the demand for loans, which lowers the bank's profits ultimately. Banks are only at the top of the economy because Capitalists are willing to borrow to make more.