Austrians do not "keep predicting hyperinflation."
A few fringe Austrians (only one with academic credentials) have mentioned hyperinflation as a possibility. An additional few Austrians suggested a high possibility of something like 7-10% inflation, which was still controversial among Austrians. Of the Austrians actually active in academia (which is a higher number than many would guess), I can think of one assistant professor who predicted rising inflation.
Ron Paul has predicted it pretty consistently for about ~25 years at least and as far as I'm aware the mises institute has agreed with him all of that time. He is probably the most high profile Austrian adherent that I know of and mises the most high profile think tank dedicated to it.
I'd be interested in hearing about all of these academic Austrians who have argued that they are both to be full of shit.
Sure, but first, who are all of these Austrian economists who think Ron Paul, the most famous proponent of their brand of economics, is full of shit and when did they call him out on it?
Ron Paul is a politician, and the Mises Institute (which is not a think tank and not the most high profile Austrian/Austrian-inclusive organization) has largely disagreed, other than Gary North and Doug French, who are both about as low profile and unserious as you can get.
Also, Ron Paul usually doesn't predict hyperinflation, though I would agree that he's very hyperbolic.
MMT is extreme to the other end. Critics (most of them mainstream Keynesian) say that it oversimplifies Keynesian model. Usually simple theories that are internally consistent miss some variables.
Basic observation: Government that issues debt (or money) in it's own currency can't go bankrupt. This is essentially correct and it even works in practice. Hyperinflation is a problem only if you have to pay foreign debt in foreign currency.
Where MMT differs from mainstream is that in their model this ability can be exploited freely. The fiscal-monetary conflict goes away. They also assume that the only feedback loop goes trough taxation–taxation is seen as the tool reducing the money supply. Other ways money creation affects the economy don't exist or don't matter.
>How is that confusing in the context of everything else I wrote?
Because when you declare a school of thought to be "extreme" it's kind of weird to agree with the core (and most controversial) concepts and only disagree on unspecified details.
On the one hand, it's like declaring that the Catholic Church is run by religious extremists because their wafers are exactly the wrong shade of pale off-white. On the other hand, it's exactly like that as well.
A lot of middle to upper class people who would like to buy real estate in a major city in Canada have certainly witnessed a form of hyperinflation.
Just because a government publishes a 1% inflation number (that may be derived from heavily manipulated statistics) doesn't real mean inflation isn't happening.
A few fringe Austrians (only one with academic credentials) have mentioned hyperinflation as a possibility. An additional few Austrians suggested a high possibility of something like 7-10% inflation, which was still controversial among Austrians. Of the Austrians actually active in academia (which is a higher number than many would guess), I can think of one assistant professor who predicted rising inflation.