Trust as the True Leading Indicator of Prosperity
If trust and GDP are positively correlated, and trust has been declining for sixty years, the implications stretch far beyond social media.
The next iteration of the attention economy, we’re told, will be built on credibility. The thinking goes like this: once audiences tire of algorithmic slop and performative content, they’ll gravitate toward credible voices, and credibility will become the new currency.
It’s a neat theory. It’s also incomplete in a way that matters enormously.
Credibility is too easy to game. It always has been. A polished LinkedIn profile, a blue tick, a well-placed endorsement, a degree from the right institution. These are signals of credibility, and they can all be manufactured, purchased, or faked at scale. AI is about to make this problem orders of magnitude worse. The question isn’t whether credibility will be gamed. It’s how quickly.
The signal that actually matters, the one that’s far harder to fabricate, is trust.
Credibility ≠ Trust
Credibility is a component of trust, not a synonym for it. This is the distinction most people collapse, and it leads them to fundamentally misread what’s happening in the information economy.
Credibility answers: “Does this person seem competent and knowledgeable?” Trust answers something deeper: “Can I rely on this person to act in my interest, even when I’m not watching?”
One is a surface-level assessment. The other is a relationship. You can build credibility with a single viral post. Trust takes years and can be destroyed in minutes. That asymmetry is precisely what makes it valuable as a signal, and precisely why systems that optimise for engagement will never produce it.
Sixty Years of Decline
The data on this is striking, and it rarely gets placed in its full economic context.
Trust in media, government, and other people in the US peaked in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, it’s been in severe, sustained decline. This isn’t a recent phenomenon driven by social media or political polarisation, though both have accelerated it. The trajectory has been downward for over six decades.
What’s interesting is the recent divergence: trust in other people has actually rebounded somewhat in the UK, even as institutional trust continues to erode. That split matters. It suggests the decline isn’t inevitable or uniform. It’s responsive to structural conditions, which means it can, in principle, be reversed.
But the direction of travel in the US, where most of the world’s dominant platforms and media companies operate, remains firmly downward. And this isn’t just a sociological curiosity.
The Economic Case for Trust
Economists have found a positive correlation between levels of trust and GDP. Not a loose association, a measurable, significant relationship. Trust doesn’t just make societies more pleasant. It makes them more prosperous.
This makes intuitive sense once you think about it structurally. Every transaction that requires a contract, a verification step, a compliance check, or a legal safeguard is more expensive than one that doesn’t. Trust reduces friction across the entire economic system. When trust is high, deals close faster, cooperation is easier, and the cost of doing business drops.
Consider the businesses that have generated enormous value precisely because they solved trust problems. eBay built a global marketplace by creating a reputation system that let strangers trade with confidence. Uber and Airbnb did the same for rides and accommodation. These aren’t technology companies in any meaningful sense. They’re trust-mediation companies. Their entire economic model depends on generating and maintaining high-fidelity trust between people who’ve never met.
Government operations follow the same logic. Tax compliance, public health initiatives, infrastructure projects: all of these function more efficiently and cost less when the population trusts the institutions administering them. When trust collapses, the cost of everything rises, because every interaction now requires additional verification, enforcement, or incentive.
If trust is a leading indicator of prosperity, and trust has been declining for sixty years, that’s not a cultural observation. It’s an economic forecast.
Why Social Platforms Can’t Fix This
This is where the structural problem becomes clear. Social platforms are inherently different from the trust-based businesses I’ve just described. eBay, Uber, and Airbnb all profit when trust between users is high. Their economics are aligned with high-fidelity human mediation.
Social platforms have the opposite incentive structure. Their economics drive division and conflict rather than trust. Engagement, the metric that generates advertising revenue, is maximised by outrage, controversy, and tribal signalling. The algorithm doesn’t care whether you trust the person you’re arguing with. It cares whether you keep scrolling.
This creates a paradox that most people feel but can’t quite articulate. Most people hate using these platforms. They find them draining, anxiety-inducing, and hollow. But they feel compelled to participate because the cost of opting out is extraordinarily high. The incentive to gain global opportunity, to be visible to potential employers, collaborators, or audiences, means people will keep returning to platforms that actively degrade the trust environment.
LinkedIn is the clearest example. Almost nobody enjoys using it. The content is largely performative, the engagement shallow, the culture rewarding exactly the kind of credibility-signalling that substitutes for actual trust. But the professional network effects are so powerful that opting out feels like career suicide. So people stay, and the platform profits from their reluctant participation.
This isn’t a bug in the system. It’s the system working exactly as designed. And it means that any solution to the trust crisis can’t come from the platforms themselves. Their incentives point in the wrong direction.
There Is No Equilibrium
The tempting conclusion is that things will eventually balance out. The attention economy will mature, credibility will replace raw engagement, trust will be rebuilt, and we’ll settle into some stable configuration.
I don’t think that’s how it works. Equilibrium, a resting place where opposing forces are held in tension indefinitely, isn’t possible in these systems. The dynamics are too complex, the incentives too misaligned, and the technology too disruptive.
What’s more likely is something closer to cycles. The system reaches a peak expression of absurdity, a correction occurs, new norms emerge, and then the process of gaming and hollowing out begins again. Culture moves in pendulum swings, reaching an ultimate expression of ridiculousness before the backlash kicks in.
The current moment, saturated with AI-generated content, performative expertise, and manufactured credibility, may be approaching one of these inflection points. Or it may not. The thing about cycles is that you can’t predict exactly when the turn happens, and things can always get more ridiculous before the correction arrives.
What you can do is recognise the structural dynamics at play. Trust is declining. Credibility is being gamed. Platforms profit from division. And the system won’t settle into a comfortable resting state. It’ll reset, and the people and institutions that have invested in genuine trust, the slow, expensive, hard-to-fake kind, will be better positioned when it does.
What This Actually Means
None of this is an argument for nostalgia or for abandoning digital tools. The 1950s had high trust and enormous structural injustices. Trust is a variable, not a virtue signal.
But it’s an argument for taking trust seriously as an economic and social indicator, not just a feel-good concept. If the correlation between trust and prosperity holds, then the institutions, communities, and individuals that figure out how to build and maintain trust in a low-trust environment aren’t just being nice. They’re making an investment with measurable returns.
The attention economy rewarded volume. The credibility economy will reward polish. But the trust economy, if it arrives, will reward something far harder to manufacture: consistency, transparency, and a genuine orientation toward other people’s interests over time.
That’s not something an algorithm can optimise for. Which is precisely why it matters.
If this piece added something to your week, please consider subscribing :)