A couple of other notes on inflation.
There are a lot of different definitions on what constitutes what level of inflation. Some would call "high" inflation 20% per year or more. Inflation below that might still be uncomfortably high, but not high by overall standards.
Hyperinflation, that dreadfully overused word:
Definitions used vary from one provided by the International Accounting Standards Board, which describes it as "a cumulative inflation rate over three years approaching 100% (26% per annum compounded for three years in a row)", to Cagan's (1956) "inflation exceeding 50% a month."
If people are talking about hyperinflation for the risk of a couple of points of inflation that people thought might happen with Quantitative Easing, then that's either hyperbole or ignorance.
Inflation is mainly considered a phenomena of fiat money. But that isn't really true. Though hyperinflation is really only possible with fiat money. But without it, you still have possibilities of inflation. It is possible for money to outgrow output. Not really likely, but it can happen. Further, you cannot ignore inflation by another name. Namely debasement.
Debasement is what happened many times when specie was used as money. The government would reduce the silver or gold content of the coins. They would instead alloy the metal with other metals to fool people. Eventually people always caught on and the purchasing power of the coinage was reduced. But for a time it could benefit the government.
Why bring this up now? Because when you look at the possibilities of non government money, you see the same thing, whether it is specie, representative money, or fiat money. In all these cases if the private sector is making the money instead of the government, they have both more incentive to debase the money, and in fact more opportunity to do so.
If you consider as a comparison the period in the US from the time of Jackson's veto of the Second Bank of the US until the monetary reforms during the Civil War, much of the money floating around the US was in fact privately created money. Any bank could issue money. And that money didn't have to be backed by anything at all. It wasn't even fiat money. Fiat assumes the government passes a law to call something legal tender. This was less than that. It was simply bank notes. Now in theory those bank notes should have been backed by gold. In practice, it often wasn't. Or not in the same numbers that the bank claimed. Or often not even backed by a bank. The long distances and poor communications of the era allowed anyone to print something and call it money, and no one else the wiser. It was private sector fraud run rampant.
Because, you know, for the most part it was impossible to check. And there were simply so many different moneys that knowing the true value of any given one wasn't really possible. There was some discounting of unknown money. But that both raised transactions costs, and still did not reflect an accurate knowledge of what any given money was worth. It was all just guesswork.
***
So now going forward some people want to abolish government money and replace it with private money. 10s of 1000s of different private money. With no knowing what, if anything, backs any of that private money. With no knowing what the relative values of each of the many moneys are. With no way of preventing or even reducing counterfeiting. With no knowing if any gold backing it even exists, or has been debased. With greatly increased transactions costs to try to keep track of it all.
In other words, it's not just an invitation to massive fraud, it virtually demands fraud on unprecedented scales.