During the great depression when people had to live with much less, they learned to save. Saving became part of the culture by necessity. Credit was offered by merchants and stores, but not to the extent it is used now.
Then gamification of credit card debt and other debt through "credit card points" and "credit rating" was introduced, and everyone was told that you had to have to have a credit card and a mortgage or you wouldn't have the credit rating to allow you to borrow more money for the car, the new furniture set, etc.
However, if the USD loses significant value (hyper-inflation) and the credit industry tanks, people will have to start saving again, just like the great depression.
We can't print our way out of debt, obviously. The more money is printed, the higher the eventual inflation.
Stocks from companies could fall if their business model relies on buying goods and services from countries whose currency increases in relative value and who sell products and services primarily to countries whose currency decreases in value. When inflation hits, and these companies' stocks fall, it would be a great time for people to invest, however those companies would have to layoff quite a few people, so only the rich and the people from other countries in the world would be able to afford to buy those stocks. When they buy those stocks and they go up, the rich get richer and other countries start buying these companies.
So basically, by the government printing more money like this, they will eventually:
- Raise unemployment.
- Raise the wealth divide between the rich and poor.
- Cause the country to have to convert from becoming a consumer to being a provider, during which there are many failures and many required changes in lifestyle and government. (Instead of bankers, accountants, and lawyers, you have more farmers, miners, and factory workers.)
The wealth divide if significant enough will cause the country to go one of three ways:
1. In a country where the citizens are less aggressive but feel a sense of entitlement (like the U.S.), it may lead to a revolt in the form of Socialism or Communism by the disenfranchised. (Socialism or Communism are bad ideas, but Russia and France are good examples of countries that embraced Communism and Socialism due to wealth divide, so it could certainly happen.) This in turn may kill off any chance that the country will be economically successful in the near future, because there is little incentive to work extremely hard to have an even poorer quality of life than before the change.
2. In countries where the people are more aggressive, a dictator may arise military rule will be established. This is much harder to escape from over time as it leads to a vicious cycle of dictatorships and coups.
3. In countries where the lower-class had already been mostly established (perhaps not to the same degree) and there is less sense of entitlement or aggression, there is a possibility that the country could perhaps convert from a more taxing Socialist government to a more Capitalistic society. Although this transition would not necessarily be smooth while government run services are privatized, eventually the country could become wildly successful due to the superior work-ethic of its citizens.