Alright, so as some of you may know, I take an economics class at my university. One of the final assignments of the term is a one-page analysis on a modern economic article. The article I chose is here. It's a Bloomberg News article that was posted in SFGate. My essay is below. I want it torn to bits. Find as many errors or areas for improvement as you can, because I want this thing spotless.

----------------------------------------------

Natural Gas has been a very important topic in the economic sector as of late, as petroleum prices continue to skyrocket toward $4 per gallon. So when I heard that a movement toward natural-gas freight trucks was underway, I wanted to learn more. Bloomberg News recently published an article on the latest market changes.

The federal government's fiscal policy can be identified in their "NAT GAS Act," which will provide a tax credit covering 80% of the cost for a natural gas vehicle, and 50% for the cost of a natural gas fill station. Corporations are jumping on these deals quickly, which means the demand for auto parts is going to rise significantly in the coming months. Consequently, the job market will require more machinists to put these vehicles together. More natural gas will be demanded, which runs the risk of demand-pull inflation. The federal government will then have to intervene by allowing for more drilling to keep prices stable. This means more laborers needed to work the refineries.

Natural gas is nearly $1.50 less per diesel gallon equivalent than petroleum diesel. The savings in transportation costs will be reinvested in the industries that choose to use this technology. They will be able to produce more, shifting their supply curves rightward. There is also the potential to hire more workers, or for the savings to be passed onto the consumer in goods being sold more cheaply.

However, the consumer really doesn't benefit much from increased use of natural gas, and this is the problem I have with it garnering so much praise. Natural gas vehicles are expensive, costing up to 35% more. In our current recession, the typical household cannot go out and buy a new natural gas vehicle; it's just not feasible. Additionally, there are less than one hundred fuel stations selling or planning to sell natural gas at this moment in time. This would mean that the household using a natural gas vehicle would either need a device to fill up at home (which costs additional money) or would need to live in an area containing at least one compatible station. So for right now, Americans will barely notice the benefits of natural gas on an economic level.

There is one more aspect, which isn't addressed in the article but I want to bring it up. Financial analyst Jim Cramer of CNBC has been saying for months how natural gas is perfect as an exportable product. Natural gas's primary use is in home heating, and for other countries, it's much more expensive. Therefore, there are exceptional profits to be had by selling abroad, which would be a great asset to our GDP.

So to summarize, natural gas has serious pros and cons. It will serve many corporations well and lead to increases in the job market. But for the consumer, the widespread use is just not there yet, and we cannot delude ourselves into thinking so.

Good Gods... I'm too tired to bother critiquing like I usually do... When is the deadline? I may try this after work tomorrow.

>>2 I've got plenty of time since I decided to do it early. And it only needs to be a page long (it's 488 words so roughly that).

I would love to help, but the majority of this goes right over my head. Whoosh. It looks fine, though.

I may be able to look at this at some point this weekend, depending on how hard I procrastinate doing a photo shoot and plotting out this week's show. Maybe.

Since it's short, though, it shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks reilyx.

"Natural gas's primary use is in home heating, and for other countries, it's much more expensive. Therefore, there are exceptional profits to be had by selling abroad, which would be a great asset to our GDP."

For clarification in this segment, you mean to say that it is an expensive export for America, because other countries would purchase it at a fairly high price? The wording seems to get muddled somewhere towards the middle, so I'm not sure as to the details of what you are saying here - I think the big picture still gets through, but the sentence doesn't make much sense to me.

When you're referring to the percentage increases, I think it would be a good idea to include the actual (average) figures that you're referring to. Saying "35% more" or "costs more" is one thing, but without accompanying figures, the point can't be truly driven home beyond academic knowledge.

The numbers would be shock value, as well as informational completions sake.

I'll see if I can find some other stuff later.

>>7 The article mentions that a natural gas freight truck will cost about $40,000 more than the $110,000 price tag for a diesel powered equivalent. I used estimation to get that 35% number. Since the differences between the vehicles is how the fuel is stored, it should be proportional (larger vehicles have larger fuel storage and likewise for smaller).

And to clarify, the production costs for natural gas in other countries (such as the UK and Japan), are noticeably higher due to its rarity in those regions. I would have to pull up one of Cramer's articles for exact statistics, but I'll change that for clarification.

Oh, so the essay is presented alongside the article itself? I assumed the essay was a stand-alone piece supported by the article as supplementary citation.

Most people don't read into said supplementary citations, so a common question is "35% of what?" or just going "wow" with a vague idea of scale.

I don't know the specifics of your essay though, so it may not really be necessary like you said.

Basically what my professor wants is an analysis of the economic content. We have to apply the theories we've learned throughout the course in order to make an economic prediction. And the article has to be stapled to the back of the essay, so, yeah.

That said, changes I made:

- "However, the consumer really doesn't benefit much from increased use of natural gas, and this is the problem I have with it garnering so much praise. Natural gas vehicles are expensive; the article cites an estimation that a natural gas freight truck will cost $150,000 compared to $110,000 for a diesel equivalent. That's an increase of nearly 35%, and one can find proportional price differences in the consumer automotive market. In our current recession, the typical household cannot go out and buy a new natural gas vehicle; it's just not feasible."

- "There is one more aspect, which isn't addressed in the article but I want to bring it up. Financial analyst Jim Cramer of CNBC has been saying for months how natural gas is perfect as an exportable product. Across the developed world, natural gas is a preferred fuel for home heating. However, in countries such as the UK and Japan, natural gas is somewhat expensive due to rarity in those regions. The United States has a comparative advantage, and by marketing in these nations, we could see massive improvements to our trade deficit, and a boost in GDP."

That reads a lot more clearly now. And since the article is stapled to it, the added numbers probably aren't necessary - But I believe they make the reading more fluid and aesthetically pleasing.

That's what I'm looking for: clarity and fluidity.

Kinda short for university...