Disproving my (unsubstantiated) assertion would involve a bit more than showing that compound interest existed in the past.
Of course you could follow GP's very effective and valid strategy of simply stating that I must support my claims if I wish to sway your views. As it stands now we're both pontificating on the internet.
I was fully aware of the academic flaws in my original comment, and indeed phrased it that way intentionally so it could be construed only as what it was... anecdotal evidence with an appeal to weak / questionable authority.
I assumed that those who took it upon themselves to read it would be capable of understanding these things and either conclude that it held (no) merit in light of their own first-hand knowledge, or, required further independent investigation to validate.
Somehow, intentions of leaving a breadcrumb for the curious reader has turned into these far more detailed responses to individuals who, by my own interpretation, understood the sentiment and yet still choose to engage it as if it was something else.
It's not free in this case. But the lenders are far kinder to the wealthy borrowers. Look at how many times lenders have simply dropped the collections on Donald Trump's loans. He's been very fortunate in that regard.