A recent post at Larry Kudlow's Money Politics at the Laffer Curve lead to an interesting lesson about enduring ideas in economics. First a description of said curve:

The Laffer curve is used to illustrate the concept of Taxable income elasticity, the idea that government can maximize tax revenue by setting tax rates at an optimum point. The curve, popularized by Arthur Laffer though widely known among economists long before that, is primarily used by advocates who want government to reduce tax rates (such as those on capital gains) whenever it appears they exceed this "optimum" level. Lowering the tax rate too much, they argue, will obviously lower revenue; the non-intuitive aspect of this idea is that setting the tax rate too high can actually decrease revenue as well.

Kudlow would definitely be included among Laffer Curve advocates, as made clear here:

It’s good to see that Republican presidential contenders are focusing on supply-side economics as a pro-growth strategy for their campaigns and presumably, for their presidential vision if elected. Also noteworthy is Alan Reynolds’ recent piece that argues tax revenues as a share of the economy actually increased during the JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tax rate reduction periods. Revenues also rose following Bill Clinton’s second term tax cut package that included a reduction in the capital gains tax rate. The older I get, the more militant I become on this subject. Lower tax rates do expand the economic pie. Lower tax rates do boost revenues. Art Laffer had it right, and he’s got twenty-five years of pro-growth evidence to back him up. The tax cutters were right. They won.

But Art Laffer wasn't the only one who had this right. According to Wikipedia, the idea has been around in one form or another for over six centuries: