It is a reasonable thought experiment posed by the OP.
It may say something about the nature of economics that we haven’t been able to come up with an answer that satisfies everyone yet.
Let me take a stab (note: I am not an economist nor do I play one on tv):
If we monetized $15T overnight – As sreeb said, what do you think would happen to commodity prices? How much would folks demand for a barrel of oil? Or for a future barrel of oil? Do you really think it would remain unchanged? As someone with a tangible asset like that, wouldn’t you be just a little concerned about the fiat you were being offered in trade? Might that concern take prices up to $140 or $200/barrel immediately? I think it might. Might that ripple into everything else pretty quickly? Look at gold prices (or oil prices) – it’s not like things are static – they *are* influenced by events.
What would happen to our exchange rate vs other currencies?
Do you think international trade and debt would continue to be denominated in dollars after such an action?
Even if we “printed” $15T, we would STILL be spending more than we take in. We would still need to borrow even *more*. Currently 40% of our debt (as I understand it) is held by external parties. If you were one of those external parties, how would you feel about lending even *more* to someone who took such a precipitous unilateral action? Might you change your terms for any future loan? I think you well might.
Since we seem to be having some trouble agreeing on what would happen, how about if we took it to a (even more) ridiculous extreme? Why stop at $15T and leave us in a position where we still need to borrow? Why not just “print” $150T? Hooray, we’re all rolling in dough! Are we able to agree on the outcome of *that*? If we can, then it seems to me you can walk back to what the impact of a $15T intervention would be.
Still not clear? Why not print $330Q? We could distribute that money and every man, woman, and child in the US would instantly be a billionaire! Problem solved?
