They might not, but could you ELI5 why they shouldn't be? Because as the interest payment on national debt grows, what happens eventually if not hyperinflation? You can't keep borrowing money to pay interest on existing debt, so you'll have to start printing money, right? How do you avoid eventual hyperinflation when you keep borrowing more and more money to increase your debt even more?
if i understand correctly, from reading bits here and there, its basically as long as you have something to offset the printing with (taxing out of circulation, ensuring the excess money is spent, taking out of circulation with bond offerings etc) then the "negative" value of the taxing/spending/bonds prevents the in-circulation (positive) cash to cause inflation.
its basically the debts vs liabilities balancing each other out on a national scale: as long as you balance the assets with some kind of liability, you are 'ok' afaiu
basically, modern monetary theory*
Inflation is where the value of dollars goes down. As long as you don't print more dollars than people are demanding, you won't get hyperinflation.
The U.S. dollar, for one reason or another, is in high demand all over the world. Other national currencies are not, so when they printed too much of their currency they got hyperinflation.
If the U.S. printed too many dollars too quickly, or demand for dollars dropped quickly, the dollar could see hyperinflation too.
And either way, then doesn't "nobody in the field worries about hyperinflation for developed economies" seem utterly misguided? It seems quite worrying given what I just described.
Actually, you probably can. The long-term trend of interest rates, at least in the West, has to decline over the course of 700 years:
* https://www.visualcapitalist.com/700-year-decline-of-interes...
There have been many gyrations, but the trend is pretty clear. It's easier to pay past (more expensive) debt with new current (cheaper) debt. The UK is still rolling forward debt from the South Sea Bubble (1700s), Napoleonic Wars (early 1800s), Crimean War (late 1800s), and World War 1 (1910s):
* https://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/oct/31/paying...
* https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/uk-first-wo...
As a person, your accounts come 'due' in your lifetime, so when you die your estate holdings will be sold off, and remaining debts will be paid off. If there's not enough to pay it off, then the creditors are S.O.L.; if there's extra left over your heirs can get something.
A country/nation on the other hand just 'keeps going' (short of revolutions or being conquered), and so there's no cut-off date when accounts have to be settled.
The central bankers are hired for a fixed-term (though renewable) and are given a mandate:
> The Federal Reserve works to promote a strong U.S. economy. Specifically, the Congress has assigned the Fed to conduct the nation’s monetary policy to support the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. When prices are stable, long-term interest rates remain at moderate levels, so the goals of price stability and moderate long-term interest rates go together. As a result, the goals of maximum employment and stable prices are often referred to as the Fed’s “dual mandate.”
* https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does...
If 'printing money' helps to accomplish that mandate they will do so, but they will (theoretically/ideally) not print money just because it would be convenient for political purposes.
It should also be noted that in most/may modern economies, private banks actually create the money the supply through issuing loans:
* PDF: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...
Good video by Ben Felix on the topic:
Do you trust Congress to manage the money supply? I don't. I think they'd use it to buy votes rather than to do what's good for the country, and the result would be disaster.