I am very confident because I have history and rationality on my side.
I would be cautious of normalcy bias. We are dealing with iterated expansive maps. Such systems can diverge rapidly. It's a new technology and will introduce novel system dynamics. Very few external analysts foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is strong self-similarity in the price curve. The manias seen so far may be higher order.
That was due to being a conscious decision to "pull it" (a la WTC 7 terminology) rather than the Soviets going bankrupt.
If you check the CIA factbook for 1990-91, you'll see that USSR had ~2trn usd gdp. Its external debt was like 50 bn usd.
Who the f*ck goes bankrupt and collapses with just 2.5% external debt? It's all bullshit.
There was one who "predicted" this, in writing, but his "prediction" was not really a prediction but rather knowledge of the plan ahead (as he was a KGB defector):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn...
His books[edit]
New Lies for Old[edit]
In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[13] wherein he warned about a long-term deception strategy of seeming retreat from hard-line Communism designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. Among other things, Golitsyn stated:
"The 'liberalization' [in the Soviet Union] would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed."
"If [liberalization] should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
"The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe."