[Toddsterpatriot]

While I don't pretend to be an expert, your statement is completely ludicrous.

Which statement?

To put it plainly, if you can loan out 90% with a 10% deposit, what could you loan out if you deposited 90%.

You can loan out 90%, while holding 10% in reserve.

So a single $1000 deposit allows $900 in loans.

It's not rocket science, and the actual amount of global currency held in derivatives is in the quadrillions.

Derivatives are like options, currency is not "held in them".

The purported 16 or 17 trillion US debt doesn't constitute a significant fraction of the liabilities in the market.

Liabilities are offset, one for one, by assets. Not sure what you're trying to say.

[antidisestablishment]

What I'm saying is that the reserve is a farce. With a 90% deposit, you can loan 90% x 9, or 810%. The reserve calculation assumes 10% is the reserve, leaving 90% for operation, but the ratio stays the same when the deposit increases.

These liabilities are not tied to real properties or assets. All of the financial assets in history do not equal the liabilities in the markets today. They may be “backed” by paper, but there is little relation to physical assets. Do you not recall the Housing bubble, the Dot Con? Were these backed?

How do you think an infinite money supply can be backed? The past 10 years would be characterized as money laundering if anyone but the Fed did it. The banks and the Fed have colluded to print the stock market up without any reflective increase in earnings. How do we have a 0% interest rate in concert with inflation? Does that make any economic sense? How are banks able to finance these massive portfolios?