Typically laughable piece from the Guardian on Venezuela. If you want to keep informed on economic affairs, I'd suggest steering clear of The Guardian.
Starting with this: this is a poor explanation of the inflation process. People will say that things have to be simplified for a broad audience, but not if it gives them a misconceived idea of how inflation works. 
In the vast majority of cases it is quantities that adjust to supply and demand. Prices adjust to costs, which are often not influenced by supply and demand but by contracts, collective bargaining etc. Describing inflation as just a disequilibrium position is not enlightening.
Then there is this, which is the conventional wisdom around hyperinflation that most of us got from learning about Weimar Germany in school (the author even refers to wheelbarrows of money). But this explanation of hyperinflation fails theoretically and empirically.
The supply of base money (instead of any other domestic currency denominated assets) cannot cause inflation because you can't do anything with them that you could not do with a government bond.
Hyperinflation in every instance has been caused by a destruction of the supply side of the economy, political crisis, or war. This then necessitates "printing money" as bonds are rejected.
The Guardian, and most others, confuse cause with effect.
Venezuela was dependent on $ denominated debt and relied on oil exports to receive $. The Venezuela crisis exploded when the oil price dropped and they could no longer earn enough $ to pay their debts or protect their currency peg.
In addition they're mired in corruption and political instability, while they are dependent on imports of essential goods because they neglected industrial development during their boom years. Sanctions and attacks from the United States have also not helped.
But if you understand inflation as simply adjustments to supply and demand, then you're not going to understand how hyperinflation episodes come about.
