The analogy creaks and aches at every turn.

The "Bank of the United States" is not like a commercial bank (though they own it), and the other countries are not creditors to the bank who can withdraw funds, leaving the BotUS "without reserves" to service the outflow.

Rather, they're a ragtag collection of other countries getting out of drawing on the dollar for their business, in different manners.

These dollars a) do not need to come out of the BotUS in the first place; international settlement is a question of Eurodollars (not necessarily Europe-related: dollars loaned and therefore created by entities outside the US).

b) They are also not "deposits" that are "withdrawn" from "reserves" of the BotUS. Also, the BotUS can print and has no reserve limit. Commercial banks also "print dollars", but with one vital difference: their "printing" consists of adding balances to ledgers as loans, which are only fine as long as these balances are not moved out of the bank, at which point the bank needs a non-self-created form of dollar to actually move these funds. No such problem exists in the examples the article mentions.

c) The ability to service bank balances in bank runs is not the basis of wealth of an entire economy. This is the actual problem the article doesn't really talk about: The US economy is now based on social networks, military material, and financial instruments, not physical production of things. This means for the US' wealth to continue, it must find other countries that exchange their actual physical stuff for online forums and ads, tanks, and dollar-based securities. Once they stop doing this, the US is done. Hence, moving the world out of the dollar; stopping the forever wars in the middle east, and blocking US online companies (China and Russia are doing all three atm), sinks the US.