How Hyperinflation Ends

A college professor’s salary went from 10,000 marks a month to 10 million marks — paid twice a day. That’s what Weimar Germany’s 1923 hyperinflation did to purchasing power, according to a Reddit comment that has held at 11,728 upvotes for close to two years:

FIELD REPORT

“This chart shows how insane the inflation was. A college professor said his salary was 10,000 marks paid once a month; two years later it was 10 million marks paid twice a day.” — u/sonofabutch, r/Damnthatsinteresting, 2024-12-22

A 2,070-upvote comment on the same thread asked the question this article exists to answer. No indexed page answers it:

FIELD REPORT

“How does a country reverse hyperinflation??” — u/SAL10000, r/Damnthatsinteresting, 2024-12-22 (2,070 upvotes)

We have four answers to what ends hyperinflation, charted end-to-end in our own data: money-supply series that run from before the crisis through the stabilisation to today. Zimbabwe (2009-2026), Argentina (1960-2026, spanning both the 1989 hyperinflation and the 2001 collapse), Brazil (1960-2026) and Peru (1960-2023).

What ends hyperinflation is a government that stops financing its deficit by creating money. Our data charts four: dollarization (Zimbabwe, 2009), a currency board (Argentina, 1991), a new currency with orthodox reform (Brazil, 1994), and one with a fiscal shock (Peru, 1990-91). All four worked. Two didn’t last: Zimbabwe and Argentina are back to fast money growth.

YoY, CAGR and doubling time are all computed by us from the raw series — see our methodology for exactly how. The current figures above come from the IMF’s monthly MFS_MA/BM_MAI data. Zimbabwe’s series is IMF end to end: four year-end observations, 2009-12 through 2012-12, then monthly from 2013-01. The other three carry a World Bank annual backfill before their IMF monthly coverage starts — 1960-2008 for Argentina, 1960-2000 for Brazil, 1960-2004 for Peru. The historical sequences quoted elsewhere on this page sit inside that backfill, not the IMF series: Argentina’s 1989-2002 run, Brazil’s 1995-2000 run, Peru’s 1990-94 collapse.

What every ending has in common

Across every route below, one thing happens first. The government loses the power to cover its deficit by ordering the central bank to print. Dollarization does it by removing the domestic currency entirely — there is nothing left to print. A currency board does it by law, tying every unit of the domestic currency to a reserve the government cannot conjure. A new currency backed by fiscal reform does it through credibility. People have to believe the deficit itself has stopped, not just that the numbers on the bills changed.

None of the four is a monetary trick played on the currency in isolation. Each is a commitment device that makes continued deficit financing either impossible (dollarization, a currency board) or too costly to attempt (a new currency backed by real fiscal reform). Argentina’s peg failed a decade later — not because the exchange-rate math broke. It failed because the underlying fiscal deficit reappeared and a 1:1 peg couldn’t absorb it. Brazil’s Real Plan held because the deficit reform behind it held too. Across every case we can chart end-to-end, the deficit stopping is the actual event. The currency mechanism is what makes that stop credible enough to end the panic.

Four ways it has been done, and what each cost

Four different approaches count as what ends hyperinflation in the record. We can chart the aftermath of all four in at least one case.

Dollarization (Zimbabwe, 2009). Adopt someone else’s currency and the domestic central bank can no longer print what people are transacting in. Fastest fix available — inflation stops the day the swap happens. Cost: total loss of independent monetary policy, and nothing stops a government from re-issuing its own currency later, which Zimbabwe did in 2019.

Currency board / hard peg (Argentina, 1991). Legally require every peso in circulation to be backed 1:1 by a dollar in reserve. Slower than dollarization but keeps a national currency. Cost: rigid — the board can’t absorb an external shock (Argentina’s came from Brazil’s 1999 devaluation and a rising dollar) without a recession or a collapse.

New currency + orthodox stabilisation (Brazil, 1994). Brazil’s Real Plan used a transitional accounting unit, the URV. It re-indexed prices and wages before the new currency — the real — was actually issued. That step broke the built-in re-indexing that had kept re-triggering Brazilian inflation. The mechanism is explained in full on our Brazil 1994 page. Cost: high interest rates and a recession to defend the plan’s early credibility.

New currency + fiscal shock (Peru, 1990-91). Days after taking office in August 1990, President Alberto Fujimori cut subsidies and let prices float. The package became known as the “Fujishock.” The government replaced the inti with the nuevo sol the following year. Cost: a severe short-term recession and a spike in poverty.

Zimbabwe: dollarization that didn’t stay ended

Zimbabwe adopted the US dollar as legal tender in early 2009. That ended a collapse that had, at its 2008 peak, seen prices double roughly every 24.7 hours — Hanke and Kwok’s reconstruction (Cato Journal, 2009). The full 2008 numbers are charted on our Zimbabwe 2008 page. Dollarization worked fast. It wasn’t a policy that gradually slowed the printing press; it removed the press. Zimbabwe’s central bank could not create the currency people were transacting in, because it no longer issued one.

That held for a decade. Then, in 2019, Zimbabwe reintroduced its own currency, first as RTGS dollars. It was redenominated more than once after that, most recently into the gold-backed ZiG launched in April 2024. Our series — 164 observations, annual year-ends from 2009-12 through 2012-12, monthly from 2013-01 through 2026-04 — shows what happened after each relaunch. The domestic money supply reached 126.71 billion XDC ($4.76 billion) in April 2026, up 45.6% from a year earlier. That yearly figure needs no caveat. The decade figure does. Zimbabwe’s reported series changes units by a factor of roughly 1,727 between April and May 2022. That is a redenomination inside the source data, not a 99.9% drop in real money. Measured over the 47 months since that break, the money supply is growing 338.2% a year, doubling every 0.47 years. That is a real rate over its own window. It is not a ten-year figure, and it is not directly comparable to the other three countries’ 10-year rates above. Dollarization ended the 2008 hyperinflation. It did not end Zimbabwe’s habit of running the printing press — it only paused that habit for as long as the domestic currency stayed retired.

Argentina: a peg that worked, then broke, then was never rebuilt

Argentina’s convertibility plan, launched April 1991 by economy minister Domingo Cavallo, pegged the peso to the US dollar 1:1 through a currency board. It arrived after two hyperinflation spikes charted in full on our Argentina 1989 page: the money supply grew 2,235% in 1989 and 1,113% in 1990. After the peg, growth fell cleanly: 141% in 1991, 62% in 1992, 47% in 1993, 18% in 1994. It turned slightly negative in 1995 (-2.8%), as Mexico’s Tequila crisis hit Argentine banks. The next two years broke that pattern: growth climbed back to 18.8% in 1996 and 25.5% in 1997, a credit boom the currency board had no lever to restrain. It then cooled again — 10.5% in 1998, 4.1% in 1999, 1.5% in 2000.

The peg did not survive the following year. Money supply fell 19.4% in 2001 as capital fled and the government froze bank deposits — the “corralito,” December 2001. Argentina defaulted on its sovereign debt in January 2002 and floated the peso. The peso promptly devalued from 1:1 to roughly 3-to-1 against the dollar. Money supply rose 19.7% that year as the devaluation worked through the system.

Growth then sped up again for two decades under a floating peso and a central bank once again setting its own policy. From December 2010 to January 2026, our own series shows the peso money supply grew roughly 515-fold — the series carries no redenomination break in that window, so the multiple is like-for-like, unlike Zimbabwe’s. That run puts Argentina’s 10-year figure today at 62.8% a year, and 40.2% over the most recent 12 months (2026-01) — a 1.4-year doubling time. That is high money-supply growth, not Cagan-hyperinflation. We don’t hold Argentina’s current price-inflation series, and 40% a year is a different order of magnitude from the 50%-a-month threshold that actually defines the term. A currency board ended Argentina’s hyperinflation. It did not end the country’s habit of financing deficits with new pesos once the board itself was gone.

Brazil: the cleanest recovery in our data

By our own series, Brazil’s post-Real-Plan slowdown is the smoothest of the four. Money-supply growth fell from 44.3% in 1995 to 31.0% in 1996, 17.2% in 1997, and 12.0% in 1998. That’s a straight line down, year after year, with no relapse spike in between. That clean run didn’t hold past 1998: growth climbed back to 18.1% in 1999 and 19.7% in 2000. We stop the sequence there. Our 2001 figure straddles the switch from the World Bank backfill to the IMF monthly series. It would measure the level gap between two sources as much as a year of growth. The stabilisation itself held anyway — Brazil never returned to hyperinflation, or anywhere near it, even while money growth resumed. By 2026-05, the same series puts Brazil’s broad money at $2.80 trillion. It is growing 11.0% year-on-year and 11.1% on a 10-year average, a 6.6-year doubling time. That is normal large-economy monetary growth, not a hyperinflation aftermath number. The 1995-98 run is still the cleanest slowdown in our four cases, even though it didn’t last.

Peru: the same shock therapy, a similar decline

Peru’s stabilisation moved on the same two levers as Brazil’s — a new currency and a fiscal shock — but arrived on harsher terms. Our series shows the money supply grew 6,385% in 1990, Peru’s actual hyperinflation year. Growth then slowed to 231% (1991), 88% (1992), 72% (1993), and 37% (1994) — the same shape as Brazil’s, just steeper at the start. Our Peru page carries the full monthly series. By our latest observation, 2023-06, Peru’s broad money is growing 2.0% a year and 9.0% on a 10-year average, an 8.1-year doubling time. That observation is stale relative to Zimbabwe’s, Argentina’s, or Brazil’s 2026 dates. We don’t have a newer official figure to update it with, and we say so rather than implying recency we don’t have.

What our data can’t show

We hold end-to-end own series for three of these four endings — Argentina, Brazil and Peru run from 1960 through their stabilisations to today. Zimbabwe’s own series starts exactly at dollarization, December 2009, so it can’t show the 2008 peak itself; that’s on our Zimbabwe 2008 page instead. Only what happened after belongs here.

What none of our four series can show directly is the fiscal deficit itself. We hold money supply, not government budget balances — “the deficit stopped” is recorded economic history, not a line in our own dataset. We also don’t hold a case of the fifth commonly cited mechanism on its own: central-bank independence granted without a currency change or a peg. Every ending we can chart bundles independence with dollarization, a board, or a new currency. And seven of the ten episodes on our hyperinflation index — Weimar Germany, Hungary’s pengő, Yugoslavia, Venezuela and Lebanon among them — are narrative-only in our holdings. We don’t have their own money-supply series to chart an ending the way we can for these four.

FAQ