Supply Side Economics Part 3: The Market Fundamentalism Feedback Loop

In the first two parts of this blog series, I explained why supply side economics is theoretically and empirically weak. I then discussed why the ideology persists within the public. I want to be a tad bit more rigorous in this post. I've alluded to the fact that supply-side economics is normally combined with austerity policies. We also introduced market fundamentalism; the extension of neoliberal market ideologies to all facets of life. In this post, I will treat all of these concepts as equivalent, and we will construct a system dynamics model that encapsulates some of the causal forces introduced last post.

Here we will introduce the Atlas Network and the State Policy Network (SPN); two organizations that act as the "think tanks" for "think tanks". They are essentially hubs in a network that are basically infrastructure for market fundamentalism – not just on narrow tax policy, but across austerity, neoliberal “reforms,” climate inaction, and libertarian culture-war stuff. They provide instruction, training, and funding for new think tanks that propagate these bad ideas.

Across the Atlas ecosystem and related conservative/libertarian think tanks you see a bundle of ideas repeatedly:

Supply-side economics – tax cuts, deregulation, labor “flexibility,” privatization framed as growth engines.
Austerity & “fiscal responsibility” – spending caps, balanced-budget rules, welfare and pension cuts, often in the middle of downturns.
Neoliberal structural reforms – privatizing utilities and pensions, trade and capital account liberalization, independent central banks plus weakened unions and social protections.
Climate inaction / environmental skepticism – from full denial to “delay/derail” strategies that oppose binding regulations. (Brown Climate Social Science Network)
Libertarian cultural politics – anti-union, school vouchers/charters, “parental choice,” anti-DEI, anti-ESG, hostility to public health mandates, etc.

Atlas Network in particular describes its mission as supporting “classically liberal” and “pro-freedom” organizations worldwide, helping them learn how to “win the battle for hearts and minds” on free markets and small government. (Wikipedia) They’re explicitly extending market fundamentalism into everything from pensions and schools to environmental regulation and culture.

Atlas is literally a meta-network. Founded 1981, now claims ~580–590 partner organizations in 100+ countries. (Wikipedia) Its budget is around $24–28M/year, with $7–8M in grants to partners and ~4,000 people trained annually through “Atlas Network Academy” on fundraising, marketing, leadership, and campaign tactics. (Wikipedia) Its self-described as a connector: “a think tank that creates think tanks,” giving seed grants, training, and networking to pro-market groups globally. (Wikipedia) Recent research (Vucetic 2024, “Atlas Asunder?”) treats Atlas as a global neoliberal thought network and analyzes dozens of partner orgs’ outputs from 2017–22, finding they prioritize “free market” causes and often see rising radical-right movements as tactical allies rather than threats. (OUP Academic) Investigative work (Lee Fang, Intercept) shows Atlas-linked think tanks deeply involved in Latin American politics, training activists and politicians who helped implement austerity/privatization agendas and undermine left governments in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, etc. (Alainet)

In the U.S., the State Policy Network (SPN) mirrors Atlas at the state level. It was formed in 1992 as an outgrowth of Heritage-inspired state groups; now has 65+ member think tanks in all 50 states and hundreds of affiliates. (Wikipedia) Its explicit mission: advance “market-oriented public policy solutions” and “limited government” at the state level. (Wikipedia) It generates about ~$25–27M/year in revenue, plus tens of millions in combined revenues among affiliates. (Wikipedia) Its closely linked to ALEC (model right-wing state legislation) and to major national advocacy orgs like Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform. (Wikipedia) SPN affiliates push state tax cuts and spending caps, welfare cuts and Medicaid rollbacks, school vouchers and union attacks (“workplace freedom”), and deregulation in energy, environment, and labor. (Wikipedia) Hertel-Fernandez’s book State Capture basically argues SPN + ALEC + Koch groups have reengineered state policy regimes to lock in neoliberal and anti-labor rules. (Wikipedia)

There are three big funding patterns:

Billionaire / corporate families & foundations: Jane Mayer’s Dark Money documents a core set of right-wing billionaire families whose foundations built this infrastructure: Koch, Scaife (Mellon heir), Bradley, Olin, Coors, DeVos, etc. (Wikipedia)

Koch network: seeded Cato, heavily funded Americans for Prosperity, AEI, etc. (Wikipedia)
Scaife: gave ~$23M to Heritage and was previously the largest single donor to AEI. (The Guardian)
Bradley and others fund SPN and state-level groups. (Wikipedia)

Donor-advised “dark money” conduits: A lot of the funding flows through DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, donor-advised funds explicitly marketed as a “dark money ATM for the conservative movement.” (The Guardian) In 2024, DonorsTrust alone granted about $195M to more than 300 right-wing influence groups, litigation centers, media outlets, and climate deniers. (EXPOSEDbyCMD)

Investigations show DonorsTrust and Donors Capital funneled tens or hundreds of millions into:
SPN affiliates,
climate denial and “free-market” think tanks,
right-wing media outlets. (Center for Public Integrity)

Fossil fuel and tobacco money: Conservative think tanks’ role in climate and tobacco policy is heavily documented. Robert Brulle’s funding analysis calls these conservative foundations and front groups the core organizational base of the climate denial movement. (Scientific American)

Atlas itself received funding from Koch-affiliated groups, ExxonMobil Foundation, and tobacco industry in earlier decades; many partners were funded by tobacco companies in the 1990s–2000s and acted to oppose tobacco control. (Wikipedia)
Dunlap & McCright and others show fossil-fuel-funded think tanks (Heritage, Cato, Heartland, etc.) as central nodes in the climate denial countermovement. (Brown Climate Social Science Network)

From a systems / network perspective, Atlas, SPN, and cousin networks act as central hubs in a multi-layered graph. The core strategies. Atlas and SPN don’t just fund ideas; they manufacture organizations; they are seeding and scaling nodes (“think tank that creates think tanks”). Grants of a few thousand dollars and training help launch new think tanks, especially in the Global South (Peru’s ILD, think tanks in Africa, Eastern Europe, etc.). (Wikipedia) These new nodes import a shared ideological template (free markets, anti-statism) and organizational playbook (policy papers, op-eds, “index” reports, media outreach). This is classic scale-free network growth: central hubs preferentially attach to new nodes that share their ideology, creating a network with a small number of highly connected hubs (Atlas, SPN, Koch-related funds) and many peripheral but aligned nodes.

Atlas explicitly runs Atlas Network Academy and regional Liberty Forums to teach partners how to frame issues as moral battles (freedom vs statism), fundraising and marketing skills, and media engagement and grassroots organizing. (Wikipedia) ABC News described partners as being trained to “win the battle for hearts and minds” – this is not just white papers; it’s political communication. (Wikipedia) SPN similarly offers training so state think tanks “run like business franchises,” aligned around school choice, tax cuts, union weakening, and deregulation. (Wikipedia)

Conservative think tanks produce “policy-based evidence” (studies, indexes, and contrarian books) in multiple forms: short “studies” supporting tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and austerity; freedom / economic freedom indices that encode neoliberal metrics and shame countries/states with strong public sectors; and climate-skeptic books and reports that manufacture uncertainty about science. Dunlap and colleagues show a strong link between conservative think tanks and 108 climate change denial books, arguing these are key vehicles for attacking mainstream climate science. (PMC) Boussalis & Co. show the volume of climate contrarian content from conservative think tanks has grown sharply, with messaging shifting from “is climate change real?” to “policy responses are harmful,” which aligns with delaying or weakening regulation. (ScienceDirect)

Information flows through several paths as Multi-channel diffusion (media, social media, and politics). First is the Think tank → media channel. This includes Op-eds, press releases, and policy briefings. It also includes journalists on deadline who quote them as “experts,” especially in ideological media ecosystems. Another is the Think tank → politicians & staffers channel, consisting of Model bills (via ALEC & SPN) and Policy blueprints (Heritage’s Mandate for Leadership; Project 2025). (The Guardian) Very important for the modern information age is the Think tank → movement organizations & influencers channel. This consists of training activists (Free Brazil Movement, Latin American youth orgs, Tea Party/AFP activists). (Alainet) and supplying talking points and “studies” to pastors, YouTubers, and movement media. Lastly, there is the Think tank → public channel in which think tanks communicate directly with the public in some form or another. For example, Branded “Tax Freedom Day,” “economic freedom” rankings, “welfare dependency” narratives that become part of popular vocabulary. From a systems perspective, think tanks are information hubs with high betweenness centrality: they sit between billionaire donors, politicians, media, and grassroots supporters and control what “expert knowledge” flows between them.

There is also a clear pattern of pushing market fundamentalism into the culture more broadly outside of the economic domain. McCright, Dunlap, and others call conservative think tanks a “denial machine”; They turn a narrow economic skepticism about regulation into full-spectrum environmental skepticism: climate, pollution, environmental health, often libertarianized as “property rights” issues. (Brown Climate Social Science Network) Atlas has historically helped partner think tanks oppose tobacco controls and later vape regulation, aligning with corporate interests while deploying generic “freedom / consumer choice / nanny state” framing. (Wikipedia) Climate denial messaging has diffused transnationally: from US think tanks to UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and beyond, via networks like Atlas and SPN. (sciencepolicy.colorado.edu) More broadly, SPN and Atlas partners push: School vouchers & charters as “choice” – marketizing education (Wikipedia), Healthcare privatization and anti-Medicaid expansion – marketizing health (Wikipedia), Attacks on unions and collective bargaining as “workplace freedom” (Wikipedia) and Anti-DEI/ESG campaigns reframed as “protecting shareholders” and “keeping politics out of business,” again weaponizing a narrow market logic. This is what Wendy Brown calls neoliberalism as a political rationality: everything – schools, families, democracy, identity – is reframed in market terms (competition, choice, human capital), and think tanks are the engineers of that reframing.

From a systems-dynamics angle, you can think of this as a set of reinforcing feedback loops. This is what we will be analyzing in this post. For example, there is a reinforcing loop : Wealth → influence → policy → more wealth; a classic positive feedback loop – a political economy version of a compound-interest process.

Wealthy donors & corporations fund think tanks and networks.
Think tanks design and promote policies that increase returns to capital (tax cuts, deregulation, weakened labor/environment rules).
These policies further concentrate wealth among the same elites.
Increased wealth → more funding capacity to expand the network.

We can also construct a second reinforcing loop: Narrative → belief → support → capacity:

Think tanks generate narratives: “tax cuts grow the economy,” “regulation kills jobs,” “climate policies hurt the poor,” etc.
These narratives spread through media, churches, schools, and activist networks, shaping public and elite beliefs.
Believers donate, vote, and consume partisan media, which in turn increases demand for think-tank content and political clout for aligned politicians.
Success stories (“we defeated X bill,” “we elected Y”) increase credibility and in-group loyalty, leading to more support and more narrative production.

Over time, this can create epistemic closure: inside the movement’s information network, only in-network “experts” (Heritage, AEI, Atlas partners) are trusted; critical scholarship is dismissed as partisan or “globalist.” That’s exactly the “apologetics” dynamic we noted earlier: conclusion-first, community-reinforced, and self-sealing. Structural features that keep the system closed to outside influence via aspects such as:

Donor anonymity (via DonorsTrust, etc.) breaks the accountability loop between source and public; you see the message, not the money. (Center for Public Integrity)
Network density and homophily: Atlas/SPN affiliates mostly cross-reference each other, invite each other to conferences, and publicize each others’ work, increasing perceived “consensus” within the bubble. (Wikipedia)
Parallel media ecosystem: when your “experts” appear constantly on Fox, talk radio, YouTube, aligned newspapers, there is little incentive for your audience to ever check what, say, the IMF or mainstream econ journals are saying.

In system terms, you’ve got a self-reinforcing attractor: once actors enter this basin (funders, think tanks, politicians, activists, citizens), everything from incentives to identity keeps them orbiting inside it, even when external evidence contradicts the core beliefs.

The reach is quite broad. A few concrete indicators:

Atlas: ~580–590 partner organizations in 100+ countries; multi-million-dollar grant-making and thousands trained annually (we will look at map plots of this later). (Wikipedia)
SPN: at least one affiliate in each U.S. state; combined revenues of network orgs in the tens of millions; active on tax, labor, education, welfare, environment. (Wikipedia)
DonorsTrust / Donors Capital: almost $200M in 2024 alone to 300+ right-wing groups; tens of millions annually for more than a decade prior. (EXPOSEDbyCMD)
Climate denial: conservative think-tank climate output has grown rapidly, and think-tank-linked denial books form a key spine of the global denial movement. (ScienceDirect)

And in Latin America in particular, investigations show Atlas-affiliated think tanks helping shape party platforms, advise ministers, and coordinate campaigns against left governments, using imported “free market / anti-corruption / anti-statist” narratives. (Alainet) So this isn’t marginal. It’s a globalized ideological supply chain.

Now, given this background, lets go ahead and build a systems dynamics model. We will first define the main variables, then lay out the reinforcing (R) and balancing (B) loops that explain how supply-side / market-fundamentalist ideas spread via think-tank networks (Atlas, SPN, Heritage/AEI orbit, etc.).

1. Core variables (what’s on the diagram)

Think in four layers:

Resources & structure

Wealth of economic elites (WEALTH)
Donor funding to ideological networks (FUNDING)
Think tank network size/density (NETWORK_DENSITY)
Think tank capacity (TT_CAP) – staff, comms, research, training
Movement infrastructure (INFRA) – conferences, training programs, legal shops, media outlets

Information & narratives

Market-fundamentalist content volume (MF_CONTENT) – papers, op-eds, TV hits, social posts
Perceived expert consensus on markets (PERCEIVED_CONSENSUS)
Media amplification (MEDIA_AMP) – how often these orgs show up as “experts”
Resonant narratives / frames (NARRATIVE_APPEAL) – “tax cuts create growth,” “regulation = socialism,” “freedom vs nanny state,” etc.

Beliefs & politics

Public belief in market fundamentalism (PUBLIC_BELIEF)
Elite belief / policy preferences (ELITE_BELIEF) – among politicians, judges, high-level bureaucrats
Political power of aligned actors (POLITICAL_POWER) – seats, committee chairs, appointments
Policy adoption of supply-side/neoliberal reforms (POLICY_ADOPTION)

Outcomes & feedback

Inequality / wealth concentration (INEQUALITY)
Regulatory capacity & state legitimacy (STATE_CAPACITY) – quality of public institutions, enforcement, social trust
Policy performance (POLICY_PERFORMANCE) – growth, stability, crises, social indicators
Counter-movement strength (COUNTER_MVT) – unions, progressive think tanks, climate/justice orgs
Systemic shocks (SHOCKS) – crises that visibly contradict the narrative (financial crashes, climate disasters, pandemics)

We’ll hook these together in loops.

2. Big reinforcing loops (the “engine” of propagation)

R1 – Wealth → funding → policy → more wealth

(The classic plutocratic growth loop)

WEALTH (+) → FUNDING

More concentrated wealth among economic elites → more surplus cash available to funnel into Atlas/SPN/Heritage-type networks.

FUNDING (+) → TT_CAP & INFRA

More money → more staff, better comms teams, more training programs, more spin-offs (new think tanks, front groups, student orgs).

TT_CAP & INFRA (+) → MF_CONTENT

Capacity and infrastructure allow high volumes of reports, op-eds, “indexes,” YouTube content, training sessions, school curricula.

MF_CONTENT (+) → MEDIA_AMP & PERCEIVED_CONSENSUS

Journalists and platforms under time pressure quote “experts” who are always available. Repetition across many branded orgs creates the illusion of a broad expert consensus around market fundamentalism.

MEDIA_AMP & PERCEIVED_CONSENSUS (+) → ELITE_BELIEF & PUBLIC_BELIEF

Politicians, judges, and voters internalize “everyone knows” tax cuts & deregulation are the route to growth and freedom.

ELITE_BELIEF (+) → POLITICAL_POWER & POLICY_ADOPTION

Market-fundamentalist elites win elections, staff agencies, and implement supply-side, austerity, privatization, and deregulatory policies.

POLICY_ADOPTION (+) → INEQUALITY & WEALTH

The policies themselves increase profits, asset prices, and top-end incomes, further concentrating WEALTH among the same class that funds the network.

INEQUALITY (+) → WEALTH

More inequality → more wealth available to be used as political capital → back to FUNDING.

This is the central reinforcing loop R1:

WEALTH → FUNDING → TT_CAP → MF_CONTENT → BELIEFS → POLICY → WEALTH

Diagram 1 – Core political economy loop (R1)

This is the engine: wealth → funding → think tanks → content → belief → policy → more wealth.

flowchart TD %% R1 – Core wealth–funding–policy loop w_wealth["Wealth of economic elites"] f_funding["Funding to ideological networks (R1 → R2, R3)"] tt_cap["Think tank capacity & policy infrastructure"] mf_content["Market-fundamentalist content"] media_amp["Media amplification"] perc_cons["Perceived expert consensus"] elite_belief["Elite belief in market fundamentalism"] public_belief["Public belief in market fundamentalism"] pol_power["Political power of aligned actors"] policy_adopt["Adoption of supply-side / neoliberal policies (R1 → B1–B4)"] inequality["Inequality & wealth concentration"] w_wealth -->|+| f_funding f_funding -->|+| tt_cap tt_cap -->|+| mf_content mf_content -->|+| media_amp media_amp -->|+| perc_cons perc_cons -->|+| elite_belief media_amp -->|+| public_belief elite_belief -->|+| pol_power public_belief -->|+| pol_power pol_power -->|+| policy_adopt policy_adopt -->|+| inequality inequality -->|+| w_wealth

R2 – Network growth & ideological diffusion

(The Atlas/SPN “think tank that creates think tanks” loop)

FUNDING (+) → NETWORK_DENSITY & INFRA

Atlas/SPN use money to seed new think tanks, train staff, and convene regional forums.

NETWORK_DENSITY (+) → MF_CONTENT & MEDIA_AMP

More nodes = more reports + more local “experts” in more places.
Journalists and local officials keep seeing different org logos echoing the same ideas → stronger PERCEIVED_CONSENSUS.

NETWORK_DENSITY (+) → NARRATIVE_APPEAL

The same frames (e.g., “Tax Freedom Day,” “economic freedom index,” “school choice”) get localized and culturally adapted, making them more resonant.

NARRATIVE_APPEAL (+) → PUBLIC_BELIEF & ELITE_BELIEF
BELIEFS (+) → DEMAND for aligned think tanks

More receptive audience → easier recruiting of young staff, politicians, donors.

DEMAND (+) → FUNDING & NETWORK_DENSITY

Donors see “impact” (media hits, policy wins, social media traction) → more willing to fund expansion and spin-offs.

That’s R2:

FUNDING → NETWORK_DENSITY → MF_CONTENT → BELIEFS → DEMAND → FUNDING

Atlas and SPN are specifically engineered to exploit this loop.

R3 – Career incentives & intellectual supply

(Why you get a steady supply of “experts”)

TT_CAP & INFRA (+) → CAREER_OPPORTUNITIES_IN_MOVEMENT

Fellowships, think-tank jobs, media gigs, speaking circuits, consulting, political appointments.

CAREER_OPPORTUNITIES (+) → SUPPLY_OF_INTELLECTUALS & SPOKESPEOPLE

Smart ambitious people (including PhDs) realize there’s a career path if they play inside the ideology.

SUPPLY_OF_INTELLECTUALS (+) → MF_CONTENT & APPARENT SOPHISTICATION

More white papers, models, “studies,” polished media performances → movement looks intellectually serious.

APPARENT SOPHISTICATION (+) → PERCEIVED_CONSENSUS & ELITE_BELIEF

The more “serious” it all looks, the more elites feel safe citing it.

ELITE_BELIEF (+) → POLICY_ADOPTION → DONOR SATISFACTION → FUNDING
FUNDING (+) → TT_CAP & INFRA

That’s R3:

TT_CAP → CAREER_OPPORTUNITIES → INTELLECTUAL_SUPPLY → MF_CONTENT → LEGITIMACY → FUNDING → TT_CAP

This is the “apologetics industrial complex” parallel: the system rewards people who can generate “evidence” for fixed conclusions.

Diagram 2 – Careers & “expertise” loop (R3)

This is the apologetics-industrial-complex loop: why you get a steady stream of “experts.”

flowchart TD %% R3 – Career incentives and 'expert' supply f_funding["Funding to ideological networks (from R1)"] tt_cap["Think tank capacity (from R1)"] career_opps["Career opportunities in movement (jobs, fellowships, media gigs, political posts)"] intel_supply["Supply of sympathetic 'experts' & spokespeople"] mf_content["Market-fundamentalist content (to R1, R2, R4)"] apparent_soph["Apparent sophistication (models, indices, citations)"] perc_cons["Perceived expert consensus (from R1)"] elite_belief["Elite belief (from R1)"] f_funding -->|+| tt_cap tt_cap -->|+| career_opps career_opps -->|+| intel_supply intel_supply -->|+| mf_content intel_supply -->|+| apparent_soph apparent_soph -->|+| perc_cons perc_cons -->|+| elite_belief elite_belief -->|+| f_funding

R4 – Narrative–identity–media loop

(Turning ideas into identity and culture)

MF_CONTENT & NARRATIVE_APPEAL (+) → IDENTITY_ALIGNMENT

Messages are framed as “American values,” “Christian values,” “patriotism,” “freedom,” “anti-communism,” etc., making belief a matter of identity, not just opinion.

IDENTITY_ALIGNMENT (+) → MEDIA_DEMAND & AUDIENCE_LOYALTY

Audiences seek media that fits their identity (Fox, talk radio, YouTube channels, newsletters).

MEDIA_DEMAND (+) → MEDIA_AMP

Media outlets amplify think-tank content because it resonates and drives engagement.

MEDIA_AMP (+) → MF_CONTENT VISIBILITY
VISIBILITY (+) → IDENTITY_ALIGNMENT & PUBLIC_BELIEF

This is R4:

MF_CONTENT → IDENTITY → MEDIA_DEMAND → MEDIA_AMP → MF_CONTENT (visibility)

It closes the epistemic bubble: changing your mind now threatens your identity and tribe.

Diagram 3 – Identity & media loop (R4)

This shows how market fundamentalism becomes part of identity and culture, locking in belief.

flowchart TD %% R4 – Identity, media, and culture mf_content["Market-fundamentalist content (from R1, R2, R3)"] narrative_appeal["Narrative appeal ('freedom', 'anti-socialism', 'Christian free enterprise')"] identity_align["Identity alignment (patriotism, religion, tribe)"] media_demand["Demand for aligned media content"] media_amp["Media amplification (from R1)"] public_belief["Public belief (to R1, from R1)"] mf_content -->|+| narrative_appeal narrative_appeal -->|+| identity_align identity_align -->|+| media_demand media_demand -->|+| media_amp media_amp -->|+| mf_content identity_align -->|+| public_belief

R5 – Global policy diffusion loop

(Atlas exporting neoliberal scripts worldwide)

NETWORK_DENSITY (global) (+) → POLICY_TEMPLATE_AVAILABILITY

Pre-packaged reforms: voucher laws, pension privatization, deregulation scripts, “economic freedom” benchmarking.

POLICY_TEMPLATE_AVAILABILITY (+) → POLICY_ADOPTION in multiple countries

Especially when:
international lenders,
trade bodies,
or regional elites are already leaning that way.

POLICY_ADOPTION (+) → SUCCESS_STORIES (or at least narratives of success)

“Look at Chile / Estonia / Georgia / [X] after our reforms!”
Whether or not the full evidence supports the story.

SUCCESS_STORIES (+) → NARRATIVE_APPEAL & ELITE_BELIEF elsewhere
ELITE_BELIEF (+) → DEMAND for Atlas/SPN-style think tanks in new countries
DEMAND (+) → FUNDING & NETWORK_DENSITY

That’s R5:

NETWORK_DENSITY → POLICY_TEMPLATES → POLICY_ADOPTION → SUCCESS_STORIES → BELIEF → DEMAND → NETWORK_DENSITY

This is why you see similar policy packages and talking points popping up in very different countries.

Diagram 4 – Network growth & global diffusion (R2 + R5)

This shows Atlas/SPN-style network formation and how “success stories” spread globally.

flowchart TD %% R2 & R5 – Network growth and global diffusion f_funding["Funding to ideological networks (from R1)"] net_density["Network density of think tanks (Atlas, SPN, etc.)"] infra["Movement infrastructure (conferences, training, legal shops)"] mf_content["Market-fundamentalist content (to R1, R3, R4)"] narrative_appeal["Narrative appeal ('freedom', 'tax relief', 'choice')"] public_belief["Public belief (from R1, to R1)"] elite_belief["Elite belief (from R1, to R1)"] demand_thinktanks["Demand for aligned think tanks"] pol_templates["Policy templates & reform toolkits"] policy_adopt["Policy adoption (from R1, to B-loops)"] success_stories["Market-fundamentalist 'success stories'"] %% R2 – network growth f_funding -->|+| net_density f_funding -->|+| infra net_density -->|+| mf_content infra -->|+| mf_content net_density -->|+| narrative_appeal mf_content -->|+| narrative_appeal narrative_appeal -->|+| public_belief public_belief -->|+| demand_thinktanks elite_belief -->|+| demand_thinktanks demand_thinktanks -->|+| f_funding %% R5 – global diffusion net_density -->|+| pol_templates pol_templates -->|+| policy_adopt policy_adopt -->|+| success_stories success_stories -->|+| narrative_appeal success_stories -->|+| elite_belief elite_belief -->|+| demand_thinktanks

3. Balancing loops (countervailing forces & potential failure modes)

Even powerful ideological systems face constraints. These are balancing loops (B) that can dampen or reverse the growth of market fundamentalism.

B1 – Empirical reality & policy failure

POLICY_ADOPTION (extreme supply-side/austerity) (−) → POLICY_PERFORMANCE

Deep inequality, fiscal crises, financial crashes, decaying public services, visible climate harms.

POLICY_PERFORMANCE (−) → STATE_LEGITIMACY & PUBLIC_BELIEF

People experience precarity, crises, and state failure.

Poor PERFORMANCE (+) → SHOCKS & CRITICAL_PUBLIC_DEBATE
SHOCKS & DEBATE (+) → COUNTER_MVT & CRITICAL_SCHOLARSHIP visibility

Progressive think tanks, unions, climate/justice movements, and heterodox economists gain audience.

COUNTER_MVT (+) → COMPETING_NARRATIVES (−) PUBLIC_BELIEF in market fundamentalism
Lower PUBLIC_BELIEF (−) → POLITICAL_POWER of market-fundamentalist actors → less POLICY_ADOPTION

That’s B1:

Extreme POLICY_ADOPTION → bad OUTCOMES → SHOCKS → COUNTER_MOVEMENT → reduced BELIEF → reduced POLICY_ADOPTION

There’s often a delay here: short-term booms can mask long-run fragility (e.g., pre-2008 financialization, pre-crisis austerity) so the balancing effect kicks in late.

B2 – Credibility / scandal loop

MF_CONTENT BIAS & LOW RIGOR (+) → EVIDENCE-REALITY GAP

The more propaganda-ish the “research,” the larger the gap with mainstream academic and empirical findings.

EVIDENCE-REALITY GAP (+) → EXPOSÉS & REPUTATIONAL HITS

Investigative journalism, leaked documents, academic critiques (e.g., climate denial funding, tobacco links).

REPUTATIONAL_HITS (+) → CREDIBILITY_LOSS (−) PERCEIVED_CONSENSUS & ELITE_BELIEF

Some elites and media start to see the think tanks as partisan shops, not neutral experts.

CREDIBILITY_LOSS (−) → MEDIA_AMP & POLICY_ADOPTION

That’s B2:

Propaganda excess → credibility crisis → reduced influence

This loop is often weak inside the core right-wing media ecosystem (which will shield its own think tanks) but stronger in more pluralistic or technocratic venues (courts, bureaucracies, some mainstream outlets).

B3 – Regulation & transparency loop

REVELATIONS about dark money & influence (+) → PUBLIC_CONCERN

Leaks, academic work, and campaigns reveal donor networks, conflicts of interest, and corporate capture.

PUBLIC_CONCERN (+) → REGULATORY_PUSH (disclosure, lobbying rules, campaign finance rules)
REGULATORY_PUSH (+) → TRANSPARENCY & FUNDING_CONSTRAINTS (−) FUNDING

Harder to use anonymous donor-advised funds; disclosure can deter some donors or change behavior.

Lower FUNDING (−) → TT_CAP & INFRA → weaker MF_CONTENT & MEDIA_AMP

That’s B3:

Exposure → regulation → funding limits → reduced capacity

B4 – Institutional capture → institutional collapse

This is subtler, but important.

POLICY_ADOPTION (anti-union, anti-public investment, deregulatory) (−) → STATE_CAPACITY

Degraded public services, regulatory agencies, and civil service capacity.

STATE_CAPACITY (−) → ABILITY_TO_DELIVER_BASIC_GOODS

Lower quality schools, infrastructure, healthcare, catastrophe response.

FAILURE_TO_DELIVER (+) → LEGITIMACY_CRISIS & POLITICAL_VOLATILITY

People lose trust not only in “big government,” but in institutions overall, including property rights and rule of law.

VOLATILITY (−) → FAVORABILITY_FOR PREDICTABLE MARKETS

Even many capitalists prefer stability; chaos can make investors flee or demand a different model (sometimes authoritarian, sometimes social democratic).

DEMAND_FOR_ALTERNATIVES (+) → COUNTER_MVT & POLICY_REORIENTATION (−) POLITICAL_POWER of supply-side ideologues

That’s B4:

Market fundamentalism undermines the very institutional foundations markets need, eventually reducing its own appeal.

Diagram 5 – Outcomes, shocks, and balancing loops (B1–B4)

This diagram pulls in policy performance, crises, counter-movements, credibility, and regulation.

flowchart TD %% B1–B4 – Outcomes, shocks, credibility, and backlash policy_adopt["Adoption of supply-side / neoliberal policies (from R1, R2)"] policy_perf["Policy performance (growth, stability, welfare)"] state_capacity["State capacity & institutional quality"] shocks["Visible shocks & crises (financial crashes, climate disasters, pandemics)"] counter_mvt["Counter-movements & critical expertise (unions, progressive think tanks, climate orgs)"] competing_narr["Competing narratives (heterodox econ, justice, climate)"] public_belief["Public belief in market fundamentalism (to R1)"] elite_belief["Elite belief in market fundamentalism (to R1)"] perc_cons["Perceived expert consensus (from R1/R3)"] pol_power["Political power of aligned actors (from R1)"] cred_gap["Evidence–reality gap (between propaganda & outcomes)"] exposés["Exposés & scandals (funding leaks, climate denial, regulatory capture)"] credibility_loss["Credibility loss of think tanks outside core base"] public_concern["Public concern over capture & dark money"] reg_push["Regulatory push (disclosure, lobbying rules, finance reform)"] trans_constraints["Transparency & funding constraints"] f_funding["Funding to ideological networks (back to R1)"] tt_cap["Think tank capacity (back to R1/R3)"] public_belief_in_state["Belief in value of capable public institutions"] %% B1 – policy failure & counter-movements policy_adopt -->|-| policy_perf policy_perf -->|+| state_capacity state_capacity -->|+| policy_perf policy_perf -->|-| public_belief policy_perf -->|-| elite_belief policy_perf -->|-| shocks shocks -->|+| counter_mvt counter_mvt -->|+| competing_narr competing_narr -->|-| public_belief competing_narr -->|-| elite_belief competing_narr -->|-| perc_cons public_belief -->|-| pol_power elite_belief -->|-| pol_power pol_power -->|-| policy_adopt %% B2 – credibility / scandal loop mf_content_b2["Market-fundamentalist content (from R1/R2/R3)"] mf_content_b2 -->|+| cred_gap policy_perf -->|-| cred_gap cred_gap -->|+| exposés exposés -->|+| credibility_loss credibility_loss -->|-| perc_cons credibility_loss -->|-| public_belief credibility_loss -->|-| elite_belief %% B3 – regulation & transparency exposés -->|+| public_concern public_concern -->|+| reg_push reg_push -->|+| trans_constraints trans_constraints -->|-| f_funding trans_constraints -->|-| tt_cap %% B4 – institutional erosion & backlash policy_adopt -->|-| state_capacity state_capacity -->|+| public_belief_in_state public_belief_in_state -->|-| identity_align_b4["Pure anti-state identity framing"] state_capacity -->|-| counter_mvt

4. Other causal influences

Religious / moral framing
Variable: RELIGIOUS_ALIGNMENT
MF_CONTENT → RELIGIOUS_ALIGNMENT (via Christian free enterprise narratives) → IDENTITY_ALIGNMENT → PUBLIC_BELIEF.
International institutions
Variable: IFIs & TRADE_REGIMES (IMF, World Bank, WTO)
Atlas/think tanks → influence IFI discourse → embed market-fundamentalist conditionalities → POLICY_ADOPTION in debtor countries → SUCCESS_STORIES.
Academic capture
Variable: ACADEMIC_ECON_ORTHODOXY
FUNDING (via chairs, centers) → selective support for pro-market scholars → more market-friendly curricula → ELITE_BELIEF among future policymakers → POLICY_ADOPTION.
Social media algorithms
Variables: ALGO_ENGAGEMENT_BIAS, POLARIZATION
Polarizing, identity-laden market-fundamentalist content performs well → ALGO amplifies → MEDIA_AMP → PUBLIC_BELIEF & IDENTITY_ALIGNMENT → more polarizing content → etc. (another reinforcing loop).

Diagram 6 - Other Causal Influences

Religious / moral framing
mf_content → religious_align → identity_align → public_belief
- Market-fundamentalist ideas are wrapped in religious language (Christian free enterprise, prosperity gospel, etc.), reinforcing identity and belief.
International institutions
mf_content → atlas_tt → ifi_trade → cond_policies → policy_adopt → success_stories → public_belief / elite_belief
- Think tanks shape IFI discourse; conditionalities and advice embed market fundamentalism in debtor countries; “success stories” are then used as global proof.
Academic capture
f_funding_acad → funding_chairs → econ_orthodoxy → curricula → elite_belief → policy_adopt
- Targeted funding shapes econ departments and centers, which shapes what future policymakers learn, feeding elite belief and policy choices.
Social media & algorithms
mf_content + identity_align → polarizing_content → algo_bias → media_amp → public_belief & identity_align
- Polarizing, identity-laden content performs well, so algorithms amplify it, boosting both belief and identity alignment — and polarization further reinforces that.

flowchart TD %% Additional causal influences: %% - Religious / moral framing %% - International institutions (IFIs, trade regimes) %% - Academic capture %% - Social media algorithms %% Shared core nodes (same logical variables as in previous diagrams) mf_content["Market-fundamentalist content"] identity_align["Identity alignment (patriotism, religion, tribe)"] public_belief["Public belief in market fundamentalism"] elite_belief["Elite belief in market fundamentalism"] policy_adopt["Adoption of supply-side / neoliberal policies"] media_amp["Media amplification (TV, newspapers, social media)"] %% ------------------------------------------------------------ %% Religious / moral framing %% ------------------------------------------------------------ subgraph RELIGION["Religious / moral framing"] religious_align["Religious / moral alignment (e.g. Christian free enterprise)"] end mf_content -->|+| religious_align religious_align -->|+| identity_align identity_align -->|+| public_belief %% ------------------------------------------------------------ %% International institutions (IFIs & trade regimes) %% ------------------------------------------------------------ subgraph IFI_BLOCK["International institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, trade regimes)"] ifi_trade["IFIs & trade regimes (IMF, World Bank, WTO, trade agreements)"] cond_policies["Market-fundamentalist conditionalities & advice"] success_stories["Global 'success stories' (poster countries for reforms)"] atlas_tt["Atlas / think-tank influence on IFIs"] end mf_content -->|+| atlas_tt atlas_tt -->|+| ifi_trade ifi_trade -->|+| cond_policies cond_policies -->|+| policy_adopt policy_adopt -->|+| success_stories success_stories -->|+| public_belief success_stories -->|+| elite_belief %% ------------------------------------------------------------ %% Academic capture %% ------------------------------------------------------------ subgraph ACADEMIA["Academic capture & econ orthodoxy"] funding_chairs["Funding for chairs, centers, and institutes"] econ_orthodoxy["Academic econ orthodoxy (pro-market bias in ideas)"] curricula["Market-friendly curricula and training of policymakers"] end f_funding_acad["Funding from elites and ideological networks"] f_funding_acad -->|+| funding_chairs funding_chairs -->|+| econ_orthodoxy econ_orthodoxy -->|+| curricula curricula -->|+| elite_belief elite_belief -->|+| policy_adopt %% ------------------------------------------------------------ %% Social media algorithms & polarization %% ------------------------------------------------------------ subgraph SOCIAL_MEDIA["Social media algorithms & polarization"] algo_bias["Algorithmic engagement bias (toward outrage & sensationalism)"] polarization["Political / cultural polarization"] polarizing_content["Polarizing, identity-laden market-fundamentalist content"] end mf_content -->|+| polarizing_content identity_align -->|+| polarizing_content polarizing_content -->|+| algo_bias algo_bias -->|+| media_amp media_amp -->|+| public_belief media_amp -->|+| identity_align polarizing_content -->|+| polarization polarization -->|+| identity_align polarization -->|+| public_belief

Visualizing the Spread of this Network

I've compiled data that shows Atlas and SPN affiliates globally. It's truly remarkable to see the extent to which this ideology has spread globally, and can explain why we see different leaders cropping up around the world that align with neoliberal politicians in the United States. I've put the project here. One important note before we start: This does not reflect current, sustained funding. Atlas or SPN might have transacted a single lump sum to one of these institutions, or have sustained funding. What we will do next is look at a few slices of the visualization and then drill down into a few examples. Let's begin with a global view of the think tank reach.

The dots represent locations where the think tanks exist or have existed. Unsurprisingly, we see the United States flooded with these institutions. But also, Latin America is heavily dominated by these think tanks, which is likely a by-product of cold-war era politics and existing resurgence in places like El Salvador and Argentina. The intrusion in Chile is also interesting because this was heavily dominated by The Chicago Boys during the 70's and 80's. If you are unfamiliar with them, these were a group of Chilean economists trained under Milton Friedman, who advised Augusto Pinochet during his military dictatorship; one known to be quite brutal to dissent. As mentioned in previous posts, many neoliberal reforms implemented something known as "Shock Therapy", which came to be standard practice in post-soviet states with mixed results (implemented without any regard for second order effects).

Next, I want to zoom in on California because I found something in the data that is quite interesting from my point of view.

Highlighted on the map, we have a think tank in Modesto California (my home town). I was completely unaware of it's existence until doing this analysis, but when I looked into the "institute for principle studies" I was not surprised to see their content. In it's mission statement, we see the standard Christian Nationalist type material:

Remember earlier in this post, and in my prior posts, I referred to the fusion of economic ideology and religious ideology: This is that phenomena in action, in my own back yard. They provide "education" for families, that teach "principles of economics". In addition, they propagate these neoliberal ideas through Church networks:

Notice the claim that these "principles" quote "originate in the bible". This is what the scholars we identified in the previous post have referred to; the sanctification and diffusion of neoliberal ideology among religious communities. This particular think tank has a standard statement of faith members presumably must adhere to (like apologetics institutions), a "scholars council" of "experts" who legitimize the ideology the institution pushes, media outreach (giving it a flare of professionalism), and even a "library", with a collection of "expert curated" books such as:

Starting to see the pattern? This is very consistent with a particular ecosystem: market-first policy preferences (often deregulation/privatization) plus religious/moral language to give those preferences spiritual weight. Ritenour is explicitly “free-market oriented” and frames private property as a Christian ethic. The publisher description (and endorsements) present the book as integrating economics with “the Christian ethic of private property” and fulfilling Genesis’s “cultural mandate” / “dominion” language. It also describes the book as “unapologetically free market oriented.” This very clearly signals a Christianized defense of market ordering + strong property-rights framing, and it sits comfortably in the Austrian/libertarian orbit (Ritenour is a senior fellow at the Mises Institute). Sproul Jr.’s “Biblical Economics” is presented as covering the free market, Austrian vs Keynesian, and opposing coercive redistribution. A curriculum/review page describing the book/course says it treats “key economic theories,” includes “differences between the Keynesian and Austrian schools,” and addresses “Biblical precepts” about “the free market, debt,” etc. And a separate piece quoting Sproul Jr. attributes to him a clear stance that forced redistribution via government intervention is “neither right nor safe”—i.e., charity/help for the poor should not be done “at gunpoint.” That’s basically the classic libertarian moral framing: voluntary action good, state coercion morally suspect.

IPS describes itself as a Christian discipleship ministry teaching “the Biblical case for the proper role of government,” and it explicitly says it “expounds the biblical basis for the free market economic system.” On its “principles” list, IPS includes Limited Government, Free Markets, Private Property, Individual Liberty, Personal Responsibility, etc.; at IPS, “biblical economics” is “markets + limited state” presented as the biblically faithful model, not merely one prudential option among many. That’s already “fusion with biblical language” by their own description. ISP frames the project as discipleship. More on R.C. Sproul Jr., and Biblical Economics: a Goodreads description states the book “defends the free market” and “derives it from scripture,” framing economics as inherently moral. And Shawn Ritenour, in Foundations of Economics: A Christian View: an academic review notes Ritenour “depends heavily on the Misesian tradition of Austrian economics.” And Ritenour is described by the Mises Institute as a Senior Fellow (that’s a strong signal of Austrian/libertarian alignment). IPS also lists Dr. Shawn Ritenour on its “Scholars Council,” which is a pretty direct institutional alignment with that approach. Many Christian free-market advocates argue like obedience/wisdom → social flourishing (not obedience → salvation), which is precisely what you see in texts like this.

I highly recommend reading the descriptions of these books merely for entertainment purposes. But my point here is that Market Fundamentalism is much more than economics; its a highly integrated set of dogmas that are reinforce one another. This is why we see such backlash to climate change policy for example; the "anti-" stance is joined at the hip with demonology and salvation, making discussions about economics less about data, models, and inference and more about identity protection and motivational reasoning. For example, to suggest a market reform to correct for a climate related issue, people in this network will hear messages laden with "big government" and by extension "satan" coming to take away your god given rights. This is obviously absurd, but not to the people who've been indoctrinated by these types of organizations; it is a very real threat to them. Notice the word I used, "threat"; this is literally an induced fear.

Anyway, I want to conclude this because I'm honestly kind of tired talking about it. "Supply Side Economics" is not really anything academics and economists take serious, but it persists for the reasons I've demonstrated. If anyone is engaged in a conversation about economics with a market fundamentalist, just keep this in the back of your head.

Search This Blog

CriticalThinkingAcademy