As a lifelong Alaskan since territorial days, I have witnessed the many benefits of oil production for more than 40 years — benefits that have significantly improved the quality of life for our growing population.
For this reason, I must disagree with UAA economist Alexander James, who, in an Aug. 8 column by Charles Wohlforth, claims that because of Alaska's oil-related population increase, roughly 100,000, the economic benefit to citizens was "diluted," making all of us "poorer."
When we look around our state at road and highway improvements, airport and port expansions, new public school construction, state-of-the-art facilities within our hospitals, parks and trail developments, arts facilities — amenities and projects that came from the billions of dollars of oil revenue over the past 40-plus years — it's obvious that individually and collectively, we are all "richer" than we were before oil.
I'm not sure what Mr. James thinks would have replaced the tens of thousands of oil industry — direct and contractor — jobs during those four decades, or where taxes and revenues would have come from to grow the Alaska Permanent Fund into the $65 billion it is today. Or what entity other than the oil industry, I wonder, would have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to education, non-profit and social service agencies?
A more accurate and incisive column about Alaska's economy appeared Aug. 10, with Tim Bradner's description of Alaska's prospects for the future — which, while challenging, are bright. That future, I'm confident, will ultimately make Alaskans richer, not poorer.
— Frank E. Baker
Eagle River
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.