https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis <-- this caused the hyperinflation, not money printing.
Now, if you are arguing that the government started printing money because the energy crisis destroyed its budget, then yes, the energy crisis caused the printing of money, that caused the hyperinflation. Thus, in some indirect sense, the energy crisis caused the hyperinflation.
Controlled inflation == growth.
Zimbabwe was similar, in that they destroyed their agricultural sector but continued to buy food.
If you keep the level of money printing and spending the same but your ability to produce goods and services is suddenly hit, you will experience inflation.
If that inflation reaches a trigger point, it will start to feed upon itself in a positive feedback loop, causing what we know of as hyperinflation.
Also, no the 4 QEs of the US since 2008 weren't not nearly enough to create hyperinflation. They are not even growing exponentially.
Yes, but the trigger almost never a government that goes insane and decides to print money like mad. The money printing is ramped up in an attempt to maintain the same level of spending in response to a supply shock.
>Also, no the 4 QEs of the US since 2008 weren't not nearly enough to create hyperinflation.
QE actually causes retail deflation. Which is counter-intuitive, I know.
(the reason is that money printing doesn't cause inflation - spending does, and QE actually reduces spending in non-investment products)
Also of note the inflation rate in 1991 was very close to the 1970, and 1976 rate of six percent. So spiking to up another 6% to 12% percent briefly was clearly related, but 1/2 of that total was directly from failed policy.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2003...
PS: Another way to look at it was the oil crisis created a price spike, which poor monetary policy turned into increased inflation.
The inflation spikes that happened all around the world at that time in other countries that also experienced the 1970s oil crisis should clue you in.
That's not to say that the hyperinflation might have been avoided if the Brazilian military dictatorship spent a little less at the time. But this was still mainly cost push inflation, not demand pull inflation.
Second, a ~6% annual inflation spike due to increased oil prices is significant. But, the US baseline inflation rate from 1970-1990 was ~6% so the oil shocks at most explained 50% of US inflation.
For a country to turn a ~0.5% monthy shock into 50% monthly price increase means something else is clearly very wrong with their economy.
This was always an arbitrary definition that never really touched on the actual mechanism - the positive feedback that causes inflation to feed upon itself and increase exponentially when spending is > the capacity of the economy.
>clearly the US never had anything close to hyperinflation even with the oil shocks.
Clearly. Which is why I used the term "inflation spike" and not "hyperinflation".
I'm sure there have probably been some economies that have gotten close to the hyperinflation trigger point without realizing it, though (not America, however).
>For a country to turn a ~0.5% monthy shock into 50% monthly price increase means something else is clearly very wrong with their economy.
It means that their economy was probably spending at close to full capacity already and they were heavily dependent upon oil imports. This exposed them to the supply shock, but still, without the supply shock, the hyperinflation trigger point would probably have been avoided.
"Wrong" is a normative judgement. You wouldn't use it to describe physical phenomena. Why would you use it to describe economic phenomena?