This is like saying, "You have the option of starving to death". Yes, I suppose I COULD choose to never eat again until I die, but I'm obviously not going to. Likewise, banks COULD choose to take a course of action that would put them out of business, but they're not going to.
*sigh* A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, when there is no wisdom with which to manage it.
Tell you what, Punkin. If I'm such an idiot, why don't you explain that completely unreferenced chart you keep triumphantly waving around to us? You're so convinced that it self-explanatorily trumps all arguments and wins all debates for you; why don't you tell us HOW it does so?
Well, i was trying to explain just that.. Two lines, blue and red.
Blue line represents how much money clients deposit with banks.
Red line shows how much money banks lend out.
Until the crisis of 2008 both lines go together, meaning that banks lend out most of new deposits. But then the lines diverge -- clients deposit more money, but banks do not lend them. Because no one out there can afford taking on more debt.
So the new deposits are sitting idle in bank reserves. And no, banks do not go bust because of this, since the interest they have to pay on saving accounts is very low and banks have other means of making money (transaction fees, etc).
Oh, and the "unreferenced" chart comes courtesy of St. Lois Federal Reserve bank.