The key issue isn't levels of trust, but levels of trustworthiness. Yes, there can be feedback effects in both directions between trust and trustworthiness, but fundamentally, it is possible for people and institutions with high trustworthiness to thrive in an otherwise low-trust/trustworthiness society. Indeed, lacking competitors, they may find it particularly easy to do so, and through gradual growth and expansion, lead to a high-trust/trustworthiness society over time. It is not possible for people and institutions with high trust to thrive in an otherwise low-trust/trustworthiness society, as they will be taken advantage of. I am extremely sceptical of people who call for higher levels of trust absent better mechanisms of enforcing trustworthiness. Think about what you are actually asking people to do.
You can't bootstrap a society to a high-trust equilibrium by encouraging people to trust more. You need to encourage them to keep their promises.
But being trusthworthy is very risky and does not necessarily pay off in a llow-trust environment. Imagine you are the only bureaucrat who does not take bribes. The pay is low because you are expected to do so. You have no nest egg for unemployment. You get sooner or later fired because coworkers fear you will rat them out. Imagine being a conscientous tax payer who never cheats on his taxes in an environment where taxes are twice as high as funds needed because it is expected people cheat off half of it, and imagine trying to compete with another busine...
I decided to link to this article, because this seems to be all about what Less Wrong is about: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/10/better-time. Out of interest, does anyone know of a good resource for learning more about the training techniques used in elite athletics?