Boom –> bust

I, unlike George Soros, have a grand total of zero theories to explain financial markets.  Yet even I could probably make the same sort of bold prediction that Soros is making here.

My interpretation of financial markets based on reflexivity can explain events better than it can predict them. It is less ambitious than the previous theory. It does not claim to determine the outcome as equilibrium theory does. It can assert that a boom must eventually lead to a bust, but it cannot determine either the extent or the duration of a boom.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t booms practically by definition lead to busts?  If a boom just kept booming, wouldn’t it, I don’t know, explode?  Cleary, Soros’ theory is just further evidence that he is funding a worldwide liberal conspiracy to foment Communist revolutions at home and abroad.