The Napkin Sketch That Introduced Supply-Side Economics

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/02/24/Dan_Roam_Back_of_the_Napkin

Dan Roam, author of The Back of the Napkin, discusses how a simple graph drawn on the back of a napkin -- later to be known as the "Laffer Curve" -- became "the basis of supply-side economics" for the late 20th century.

-----

Dan Roam urges us to think with our eyes and tackle tough business problems in a whole new way - even if we draw like a second-grader.

He introduces powerful techniques from his "visual thinking" toolbox and demonstrates how people in diverse organizational settings can discover, develop and share their best ideas with a simple drawing on a basic napkin. - The Commonwealth Club of California

Dan Roam is the founder and president of Digital Roam Inc., a consulting firm that helps clients solve complex problems through visual thinking. He's also the author of The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• economist
• arthur
• laffer
• curve
• trickle
• down
• supply
• side
• economists
• economic
• theory
• policy
• policies
• reagan
• bush
• progressive
• income
• tax
• taxes
• taxation
• revenues
• rates
• cuts
• history
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[Hopeful71]

"Do you really believe underconsumption is the reason for this crisis"

Ummm, noooo.

The problem is a weak & stagnant middle class. The problem is in order to continue the growth of the last 30 years while keeping the middle class stagnant, debt was created to supplant earnings. The problem is debt grows exponentially that competes with & further slows down growth.

Eventually the debt outpaces growth & we aren't even totally there yet.

[wimscheers]

Great songs started on napkins. But even the greatest song has a lousy cover somewhere.

[Welsh77]

@enomarekim the max capital gains rate is probably around 7%, its simply too high, we have never seen a raise that hasn't lowered revenues. bush's deficits were products of spending, they had little to do with revenues. democrats argue the opposite to collect votes from people who aren't rich, by promoting class struggle and establishing a scapegoat: the rich. the truth is that bush spent way too much money, he didn't fail to bring enough in, and his tax cuts had a net positive effect

[Welsh77]

@enomarekim in case you didn't notice, government revenue DID GO UP. it went up substantially after the 2003 tax cuts. revenues rose from under 16% of gdp to over 18.5% of gdp, a truly historical rise in revenues. lots of studies claim the revenues would have been higher without the cuts, because they were small. but as far as the capital gains cuts go, cutting it from 28 to 20 under clinton and 20 to 15 under bush substantially raised revenues, and when reagan raised it revenues dropped.

[78956451222]

The Laffer Curve does not say that. Obviouslly, this is some political group making a cheap shot. It says that there is a point at which you can place a tax rate and make a maximum sum and that increasing taxes does not always increase revenue. It is called a curve for a reason. It says that taxes can be too low or too high to generate maximum government revenue. There is a good medium, and that medium is best between points A and B (closer to B).

[sactowncr1minal]

fuck that bullshit. FLAT TAX PERIOD. i hope those bush tax cuts expire cuz i dont make 500k a yr so im safe.

[enomarekim]

You can't deny that at some point, if taxes are above that rate, then lowering them will increase revenue. I can't fathom how some people are trying to deny that fact. Bush was a tyrannical ass, but I think if he had not gone to war, then government revenue would have gone up. Hell, maybe he would have been an ok president. Retarded, but ok. There might not have been a deficit. Then again there was that perscription drug thing... How the hell did sparticus get spammed for telling the truth?

[Invirtuo]

All true Anarchists are Pro-Capitalists...by definition

[BunyPunter]

So I don't suppor capitalism because I used the phrase "capitalistic ideals"...Yeah thats exactly my take.You read me well. And to be able to think for yourself, do as you please, and live by self rule in a reasonable manner is not freedom. Instead making a low wage a low wage you have the ability to negotiate reasonable pay for your skill.

Apparently you know nothing of Anarchy, only the punk rock propagandist derogatory meaning adopted by political pundits. Anarachy is not Chaos. It is free!

[mredstriumph]

You don't like capitalism, BUT you're an anarchist. How does that work?

People either make their own decisions & conduct their own affairs, OR some "smarter" (usually just STRONGER) entity does it for them. That can't be anarchy.

Besides, anarchy is slavery. Not freedom. Under anarchy, you can't even leave your own house. If you do, someone will steal it or destroy it, as theres no penalty for doing so & you're not there to stop them.

As the Greeks said, without law, there can be no freedom.