Id like to clarify my concerns with the current version of the article following the reversion of some of my edits by Stirling Newberry  My general concern is that it doesnt accurately describe the debate about various causes of hyperinflation  The article seems to me to be describing a stereotyped view of each side of the debate which exagerrates the amount of controversy and obscures the amount of common ground  Monetary and Crisis of confidence explanations of hyperinflation are describes as if they are two completely different competing theories  held by different schools of thought monetarists and neoliberals  I think that the overwhelming majority of economists would see both monetary and confidence factors as being important as the initial root cause of hyperinflation with the importance varying from case to case  A lot of the economics is very uncontroversial For example Its totally uncontroversial that a massive increase in the money supply will cause hyperinflation  Virtually any economist will agree that a big increase in the money supply is a possible trigger for hyperinflation even if they dont believe its the only one  To say imply that neoliberal economists dont believe that some hyperinflations are initially triggered by monetary expansion is to caricature their position Its totally uncontroversial that loss of confidence in the monetary system has a big role in hyperinflation  To imply that monetarists dont see a role for reestablishing confidence in the currency  that just stopping the printing presses is enough  is just misleading  Monetarists talk about ways of establishing confidence all the time  I would be interested to hear from Stirling what specific inaccuracies were in my edits and why he deleted the statement The two models are closely related and often economists may explain hyperinflation as being due to a combination of both effects