Hi Hacksaw,
Don't know when WM will respond but I just had to jump in <evil grin>.
I think it is important to distinguish between "information", "noise" and "knowledge" here. Information, and I use Bateson's definition as "a difference that makes a difference", does not automatically translate to perception or use of information. You mention the financial markets, but i would suggest to you that they are actually more unstable now than they were 40 years ago due to the proliferation of automation and expert systems as well as massive over production capacities. Like you, I'm only able to toss out anecdotal points, but I think things like Nick Leeson and the Bearings Bank fiasco illustrate some of the problems.
Personally, I don't think it translates. Smith's premise is too focused on a singular facet of human nature and way too "rational". And, while self interest is a motivator, it is not the only one by a long shot. For example, there has been an incredible amount of work done looking at altruism, or at least the ability to fake it in social settings, as a requirement for a society to function.
Second, as a species, we've been on a roller coaster ride for at least 12,000 years ever since some twit decided to settle down and get into horticulture. We have had quasi-stable periods and, as long as change has been fairly slow, say over a 100 year period, we tends to not perceive that change too much. However, every major change in communications technology has also been matched with a fairly major change in social organization and instability. Sure, it tapers off for a while but that is because the technology matures and is absorbed in the culture. At the same time, that technology also acts as a catalyst to produce new communications technologies as it reaches its limits which, in turn, sets off more instabilities.
Personally, I don't think we will see a "stasis" period for a while, but, hey, I could easily be wrong .
Marc
Bookmarks