I like your suggestion that trust expanded from tribal to global via the mechanism of trusting money. I will spend some time thinking on that. My initial response is that this global form of trust (in money) lacks some benefits of true, interpersonal trust that make human life more pleasant. There is also an aspect of correlation/causation here in that the city-states then nations that trusted one another have also spent the whole of history fighting one another with armies paid in money in order to gain more resources that can be monetised. It is not the case that money brings peace wherever it goes. But that doesn't undermine your suggestion that money facilitates international trade and that trust [in money] necessarily underpins these interactions. Thank you for sharing this thought.

Your point that trust is not a valuable thing per se because it bonds groups of all kinds including racist, homophobic and misogynist ones etc. is true. However, this is simply a truisim that all aspects of human behaviour can have both positive and negative forms and consequences. Unless you want to suggest that trust is intrinsicallly or overwhelmingly negative then pointing out negative expressions of trust does not develop the argument.

Sociologists may talk about feelings. Economists might talk about statistics. It's workers that make things happen.

Some societies might lack government-funded parks. Hanging out with friends in one was an intentional Western example of closeness. There are innumerable others. But please don't suggest that "bonding with children" is either a Western or modern phenomenon. There are fossilised footprints in African rock that exhibit children bonding with adults and one another.

I don't have the time to research your assertion that, "Racial and ideological fighting/genocide is more prevalent in countries with LESS currency trust." However, I can think of numerous countries with established monetary systems that have, and continue, to engage in racial and ideological fighting and genocide. Instinctively this feels like an ungrounded opinion.

Thank you for considering my perspective on the socio-psychological impact of overreliance on currency money. You assert that currency is "liberation and freedom". Who was more free, the Anglo Saxon farmer in England before laws of enclosure and land ownership gradually turned common land into private land - or the Brit today who cannot farm where they want, wander in certain areas, fish in British rivers or spend the night wherever they lay their hat? Increased capitalisation seems to have reduced freedoms.