Lol. Venezuela made its own bed, its currency lost 99.99% of its value without any interference from foreign actors. Chavez's open friendship with Castro and harsh criticism of multiple US administrations was his own choice and set up the disastrous Maduro reign. However you interpret the actions in the past few months, it is in response to two decades of failed policies, resulting in unprecedented chaos, unemployment, scarcity and poverty.
I think your response just proves my point, which is that people have a strong knee-jerk reaction to any level of inflation.
There's quite a difference between a 3-5% level of inflation, which helps smooth shocks in the economy and forces the rich to participate in the real economy to keep the value of their money, vs. hyperinflation, which nobody is advocating for.
The difference is between inflation as a by-product of a powerful, growing, economic engine with healthy wage growth (unfortunate but acceptable) and deliberately generating inflation, via money-printing, as the means to stimulate a stagnant economy (pure foolishness).
This is in the context of the Great Recession which saw the largest sudden liquidity withdrawal from our monetary system in recent history. The point of printing money (which I'd like to emphasize did not happen, easily verified by the lack of broad price inflation in the last decade) is to get back closer to your baseline, not to goose an economy already at full employment (that just gets you the 1970s).
> Would you, or 'smallnamespace,' like to provide counter-examples where high inflation and printing money led to prosperity?
Define high inflation. Generally people like you think anything over 2% wage and price inflation[1] will result in utter doom. However the post war period up to the neoliberal revolution had inflation around 5% with peaks over 10%. And yet total growth and prosperity was higher then today. Even the maligned 1970's had significantly faster growth and shared prosperity than post 2000.
[1] I say wage and price inflation because that's all people like you care about. Vs assets inflation which is running at 5-10% for the last ten years. Which is something people who don't believe in cargo cult economics do care about.
You do understand that in your post-ww2 example, inflation was the result of a booming economy, not the cause of it? It's like noticing that most Lamborghini owners are wealthy, and then absurdly buying a Lamborghini expecting to somehow become rich.
The rest of your post, from the "shared prosperity" of the 1970s, to the idea that an infusion of cash would slow asset inflation, to using the pejorative "people like you" (twice) is both insulting and utterly nonsensical.
>> By November 2015, a multi university study found that about 73% of households and 76% of Venezuelans were living in poverty.[213] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Nicol%C...
Would you, or 'smallnamespace,' like to provide counter-examples where high inflation and printing money led to prosperity?