End game for printing money; Gresham's law sets in, everyone saves the "good" money and gets rid of the "bad" (in this case, the one which lost just about all its value), nobody wants the "bad" money anymore since it buys virtually nothing even at large amounts. Same thing happened in Germany last century, as well as other places. Leads to instability, to put it lightly; loss of faith in the bloodline of the nation is a loss of faith in the nation itself.
Printing dollars works for a little while. Then it doesn't work at all. And by that I mean, over a long-term period, it doesn't work at all, as it leads to an overall loss. Lots of people get affected by this transfer from the individual to the collective (in this case the state), particularly those who don't take interest in these matters. Poverty skyrockets, as well as crime, and so forth; just imagine a situation where your money doesn't buy you anything and businesses (the organized problem-solvers) flee; it's pretty severe. In the end it manages to concentrate a large portion of wealth into the central planners, which acts similarly to an addictive drug preventing them from stopping that which is harmful to all. You're pretty much left with a dictatorship, e.g. Nazi Germany, which is little more than the flames waving over the nation as it burns down to embers (whereupon it can start over.)
Borrowing can help retain the value of the national currency, which doesn't have the same effect of watering down the printed currency since Joe Schmoe keeps his purchasing power (at least more of it than he would've with printing money alone), but you are still expected to pay back what you owe at some point down the line. Once the people of the borrowed-from nation start to buckle under some sort of economic turmoil and expect back what's rightfully theirs (plus interest), conflict ensues (esp. if the borrowing nation cannot pay back at all): so long stability and prosperity. In the case of two ~equally strong nations, this can incite war; in the case of one nation being considerably stronger than the other, this can cause the weaker state to become subjugate to the stronger state (the EU/Germany and Greece being one such example.) It's even possible for this conflict to occur within the nation itself, e.g. the nation's constituents and its own banks, and between businesses. It's possible between any two organizations.
Neither of them are preferable, IMO. It's better to just not spend more than what you have; it's better to have savings just in case, rather than borrowing or printing every time something goes wrong--imagine living that type of lifestyle in one's own household, it becomes apparent quick why it doesn't work out. But so long as one nation has the opportunity and willingness to get an early and ephemeral lead of power and influence over the other nations, it's a trend that will likely continue, for other nations must follow suit lest they be left to buckle under the influence of another. So everyone's in this nasty spiral of borrow and print to spend spend spend, gotta beat the other guys.
. Imagine a coin with zero mining difficulty that has consesus with billions of people, mining is restricted by violence to make only a select group of people able to create new coins. As crazy as that sounds its fiat.
