In an analysis of the market for paint, an economist discovers the facts listed below. State whether each of these changes will affect supply or demand, and in what direction.
a. There have recently been some important cost-saving inventions in the technology for making paint.
b. Paint is lasting longer, so that property owners need not repaint as often.
c. Because of severe hailstorms, many people need to repaint now.
d. The hailstorms damaged several factories that make paint, forcing them to close down for several months
here is further support for the achievements of Stalin’s economic policy. Fiehn’s argument is shared by McCauley who argued “The first Five-Year Plan was a period of genuine enthusiasm and prodigious achievements were recorded in production.” McCauley’s view is strengthened by John Scott, an American Communist and one of the pro-Soviet Western industrial advisers who described how the city of Magnitogorsk was built from scratch, “Within several years, half a billion cubic feet of excavation was done, forty-two million cubic feet of reinforced concrete poured, five million cubic feet of fire bricks laid, a quarter of a million tons of structured steel erected,” This illustrates the size of the construction work necessary for the initiation of Magnitogorsk and since it was operational within a few years it stands as a testament to the achievements of the Soviet economy. However, it is vital to consider that the source was written by an American pro-Soviet who had recently moved to the USSR due to his sympathies for the Communist idealism and could have been tied by censorship to only give a positive account of the construction. As a result, his account may glorify the process of industrialisation and exaggerate the achievements of the workforce. However, McCauley’s interpretation is further supported by the successful operation of large industrial projects such as Magnitogorsk. The city produced nearly 10% of the Soviet Union’s steel and pig iron and became a show piece for the USSR as a symbol of the achievements Communism could make. However, this can be contrasted by Sheila Fitzpatrick who referred to what Stalin called “the grand projects of communism,” such as Magnitogorsk as nothing more than gigantomania. McCauley’s interpretation fails to consider that predominant focus was directed at the quantities produced and not the quality of the products which distorted the economy. Proper planning and investment were necessary for the economic progress of the USSR which Stalin had forsaken for the large-scale projects which deprived the USSR of any genuine chance of competing with the modern economies of Great Britain and the USA as the plans had set out to achieve. This is supported by David Evans who succinctly commented that the plans were affected by “confusion, waste and inefficiency.” Overall, there is limited support to McCauley’s argument since the large-scale production, which was apparent in some industries resulted in an unbalanced economy which is not a positive achievement. Since there was little achievement in the entire economy and only in heavy industry, the achievements cannot justify the methods since they are not great enough to outweigh the brutality of collectivisation and the hardships the Five-Year Plans caused. In conclusion, it is obvious that the extent of the justification is not simple. Stalin’s understoo>GET ANSWER