Pitfalls of Economics

As I develop my fluency in the discipline of economic study, disappointing shortcomings have become apparent to me. The level of empirical rigor, i.e. proof, for economic relationships such that it would warrant political action is set extremely high. On the one hand this is certainly a plus, disallowing for rash policies based on flimsy evidence. On the other hand, there seems to be many beneficial changes that could be made but will not because they cannot effectively be parsed out.

For example, the stark contrast between the massive public transportation system I have been exposed to this year in London, and the embarrassing transit situation in my home city of Los Angeles got me to thinking about this very thing.
Riding the tube, I observe businessmen and laborers alike enjoying the benefits of a (usually) comfortable, low-stress ride to their place of employment. Not to mention the absence of conspicuous vehicle consumption costs of both the rich and poor, commuters in London are spared the time cost, as well as stress, of driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Everyone traveling on the London Underground is free to take advantage of their travel time to read the morning paper, enjoy a novel, or get some last-minute work done. The minds of white and blue collar workers are similarly free to employ their grey matter in stimulating, productive ways while making their way into town. In LA, the upper crust of intellectual workers will be chauffeured to work, and many upper-middle class white-collar workers will have had sufficient resources to move fairly close to their workplace. The middle-middle through lower echelons will be stuck in mind numbing traffic, contributing nothing to the economy, and moreover, unable to intellectually enrich themselves while harmful gas billows from tailpipes. In LA, these latter are at a constant disadvantage; their employment mobility is severely limited by this transportation disparity.

Along with the educational benefits, there are likely health benefits for public transit travelers as well. In a city like London, where excellent public transit accessibility greatly reduces if not eliminates the need for personal automobiles, city inhabitants must be walking more. Unless there is a tube stop in your driveway, people will be walking more. More exercise would be had by all, especially when you wake up to the dreaded realization that you've overslept by a half hour and must sprint to the nearest bus or tube stop. This, on top of the health benefits of cleaner air with fewer automobiles on the road.

It makes a great deal of logical, descriptive sense to conclude that extensive, high-quality public transport like that in London would imply these economic and health benefits. This makes a strong case for government provision of public services like this, because such a massive implementation would require enormous initial outlay of capital. The benefits going to all inhabitants of a city would accrue over the long term, compounding slowly, allowing the economic prosperity of a city to be unhindered by a highly inefficient system of self-transportation. Even if some private sector entrepreneur had the wherewithal to make this happen, investors would never choose to invest in this project because there will certainly be projects with more immediate, higher returns. The implication here is that the non-materialization of such a large public investment project is not because it has a net negative cost. Quite the opposite; the return however is simply on too great a time scale for it to ever get enough private funding.

But to actually prove this to the level of academic rigor would likely be next to impossible. In trying to compare the employment mobility, stress level, and overall health of cities with public transport to cities without would herald a slew of other variables that could potentially account for such differences. Though they might actually not, there would be no real way to prove it, and stalwart opponents of government financed public projects will always have the last word, at least in our current political framework. My realization of these types of connections and the concomitant hope for positive change is often dashed by this sobering reality.