Seward's Folly, Audited

An economist from the University of Alaska- I mean Iowa- says that given the financial returns- or rather losses- the United States probably should have just rented Alaska instead of moved in.

"Cash flow from Alaska to the federal government since 1867 has certainly exceeded the initial purchase price, but this fact is not sufficient to demonstrate the purchase was a sound financial investment," said David Barker, an economist and adjunct professor of finance in the Tippie College of Business. "The economic benefits that have been received from Alaska over the years could have been obtained without purchasing the territory. In financial terms, Alaska has clearly been a negative net present value project for the United States."

It would be very easy for Eisengeiste's writers to jump all over the poor economist with a devastating quip or well-informed pejorative. And those may be forthcoming. But considering Alaska's deeply squirrelly economic state, it's an interesting conjecture.