"Transitory inflation", isn't that what the fed said?
I'd say this is pretty unlikely. This is like saying that because the weatherman was wrong and it's 10 degrees colder today than predicted we should expect a new ice age to hit next week.
There is a limit to the debt-to-GDP ratio before reality takes over. Baked into the assumptions on debt is inherent growth in GDP. It's rare, but there are scenarios where you may see real contraction in GDP and, frankly the present geopolitical and global economic climate is ripe for such events. If that happens, then the US entering some inflationary spiral to service debt isn't totally 100,000 year "ice-age" ridiculous. It's more like ~100 year cold snap.
Hyperinflation is typically defined as at least 50% monthly inflation (about 13000% annualized).
The highest monthly inflation since it has been tracked in US history is a 23.7% annualized rate in June 1920 (not a monthly rate, an annualized rate), the highest estimated annual inflation (obviously, pre-regular-tracki g) is just under 30% for 1778.
So any hyperinflation would be orders of magnitude beyond anything seen in US history, sure.
But I’d like to see your quantification of “not unlikely” and the supporting analysis.
The Feds made a prediction, where all else being equal, that they expected supply chains to free up "soon", and it isn't a systemic issue. They guessed wrong, as the world wasn't ready to return back to prior productivity levels. This prediction, however, isn't supposed to be used as a basis for decision making for the common person.
The Fed had access to the same, if not better, data than everyone else. A big part of shortages was a rise in demand.