Here's the deal. Inflation is supposed to be a measure of growth since it's associated with economic output. Theoretically, when the economy is growing, money is flowing into the hands of consumers and so it will increase aggregate demand. Demand increases push prices up unless there is a commensurate increase in supply, according to the theories.
Basically, as the cost of financing gets cheaper, projects which were previously not profitable become profitable, and business plans which were not feasible become credit worthy. This results in the creation of credit and therefore increase in the money supply.
The Fed will call this 'accommodative policy' (pursuing the dual mandate).
The problem is that money is essentially a commodity that the central banks control, kind of like OPEC wants to control the price of oil. All the banks agree to suppress rates, make money cheap, and induce actors within the economy to take risks. Then they all basically fix the exchange rates so none of the currencies blow up. It's a dirty game.
The problem is the money is just driving index returns and pumping unsustainable bubbles in risk assets. This creates moral hazard because everybody knows the banks will just bail everyone out when the shit hits the fan.
It's such sure thing even Bill Ackman can make it work.
(more specific to the phrased question, Zimbabwe and Venezuela were never part of the global banking cartel that runs shit.)