WM,

I caveat the following in saying that the following is based on anecdotal evidence and intuition (thus I have violating rule #1 of effective communication - never put the disclaimer in front) ....

I would argue that the impact of an omni -present info sphere is less upheaval as opppsed to more. I will use an econ example as an anecdotal piece of evidence... During the Clinton years our economy enjoyed unprescedented growth, low unemployment AND LOW INFLATION. This made teaching MACRO ECONA at USMA, a little dicey.

How can it be so? My feeble thought on the matter is that developed economies (to include our own) still suffer the same cyclical periods of "recession" and "inflation" (I do "this" because I'm not sure the definitions still hold true based on time period), the difference is that the flucuation and magnitude of the sine curve is far less pronounced. Why? A possible explaination is that near-perfect information results in a far more optimized investment decisions from the collective whole. In other words, the reduction in lag time between reality and knowledge of that same reality reduces the flucuation/upheaval of the past. Money chases high returns, regardless of locale

Might this translate to other areas of social activity. I think its likely based on the premise behind the ideas of Adam Smith. It is human nature to act in self-interest. In the example we discussed, I may have more knowledge of those with more, but I also have more knowledge of the impact of social upheaval. Hence, societies will likely reach a stasis and then as a matter of course make rapid minor corrections that result in little "mass upheaval". Of course, getting to that stasis is likely to be a b1tch or this example might not translate. I certainly can't point to any rigorous academic analysis of my premise, but then again it makes sense in the vacuum between my ears.

Now for my final disclaimer... I apologize for the typical stream of consciousness (& poor spelling) that characterize all my postings

Live Well and Row