That's true, but for all the growth potential in P2P ways of doing things, I see two groups who are never particularly dependent on an approach to relationships based on dispersed networks: political/military authorities and outlaws/outcasts, such as terrorists or insurgents.  Both of those groups stand to gain power, not lose it, if networks collapse, even if some of their capabilities for doing things are compromised because of the loss of networks and P2P benefits.  In crises, the people with guns and centralized authority gain power, not the people who manage individual, trust-based relationships, and this means that there is an inherent instability in a network-based economy sans the hard power of a strong state apparatus.  The guys with guns, protectors as well as enemies, have strong incentives to never let economy 3.0 to ever become too widespread. And who can stop them?