[Toddsterpatriot]

Did they suddenly feel remorse for screwing over their depositors so badly?

Which depositors were screwed over? Where?

“Ha!” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has only $40.8 billion on account while insuring trillions of dollars.

What's the proper amount they should hold?

And you may not know this, but banks don’t hold all the money they supposedly have as assets.

Only idiots did not know this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOzMdEwYmDU

Banks lend out $10 for $1 in asset they hold,

Nope, sorry. They lend out less than deposits, not multiples of deposits.

To protect yourself, you should have silver (pre-1965 U.S. coins) and gold in your possession.

Right, because losing 30% on your gold and 60% on your silver over the last 2.5 years was much better than cash in a bank Ponzi scheme.

[Thermalseeker]

Right, because losing 30% on your gold and 60% on your silver over the last 2.5 years was much better than cash in a bank Ponzi scheme.

Oh so typical American short term thinking wrapped in a healthy dose of normalcy bias. If you sincerely believe the next 30 years are going to be like the last 30, mister, you are in for one rude surprise......

[Daffy]

“Nope, sorry. They lend out less than deposits, not multiples of deposits.”

Ha, ha, funny! (suggest look-up “fractional reserve banking”)

[antidisestablishment]

While I don't pretend to be an expert, your statement is completely ludicrous. The FRS, while sold as an insurance scheme, quickly became a fractional repository. To put it plainly, if you can loan out 90% with a 10% deposit, what could you loan out if you deposited 90%.

It's not rocket science, and the actual amount of global currency held in derivatives is in the quadrillions. The purported 16 or 17 trillion US debt doesn't constitute a significant fraction of the liabilities in the market.