Text Size
Tuesday, 02 April 2013 20:20

Post Scarcity Alliance | A Tale of Two Cities: Boise vs. Boston

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

A Tale of Two Cities: Boise vs. Boston

Post Scarcity Alliance

Measuring the economic impact of federally owned land can be done in a variety of ways, but any analysis will likely end up being reductive. The primary reason is because such an analysis can only measure what is known about past allocation of resources and compare them to present allocations. This typically involves enthusiasts for oil, gas, and mineral extraction bemoaning lost production pitted against conservationists who tout the economic benefits of recreation and tourism. However, aside from the fact that federal holdings in the West are so expansive that there is enough for all who would seek their fortune through the utilization of these resources, the greatest cost of federally managed land is primarily an opportunity cost. Oil and gas revenues, recreation and tourism, mining, ranching, and timber harvesting generate a relative pittance compared to what is lost from not having a free market oriented, fully-efficient allocation of resources. To illustrate this point, I will compare two cities: Boise and Boston

To begin the comparison of these two capitals, I would like to start with a few economic metrics from their states:


Idaho – $54,800,000
Massachusetts – $377,700,00


Percentage of public land

Idaho – 70.4%
Massachusetts – 6.3%

Read it all at Post Scarcity Alliance.

Don Fletcher

Don Fletcher has lived in Idaho County Since 2007.  I became a card carrying republican to participate in the 2012 Presidential Caucus.

Login to post comments