Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Russ Roberts no published score: no usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ record → ← everyone
Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5.
An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression.
The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the
cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only
toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.
Answered produced feed
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q about the argument of asymmetry in trade and what happens when you have one country that's being more protectionist and another one that's not. I've heard the argument, I think Paul Krugman made it, or maybe Adam Smith, I don't remember, but even when you're open and everyone else isn't, you, everyone still benefits, and that's the bottom line of this free trade idea. What happens when it is disproportionate?
A So in the 19 eighties, when the debate was over whether we should let Japanese cars come into the United States to compete with American cars, A lot of people say we shouldn't because they don't let other products of ours into their market. And my view was if they're want to harm their own citizens by keeping on American products, that's their choice. Don't confuse that with the fact that we benefit when we let in Japanese cars. There's a mistaken focus on the value of exports that somehow trades only fair. If, if we have balanced trade, that we import exactly the amount that, that, that, that they accept of our goods. It misunderstands the fact that Trade in goods is not the only thing we do. We trade in money and assets and capital surplus and services as well. And so America on average is going to be better off when we open our borders, not as much as it would be if other countries joined us and opened theirs too. People say, yeah, but we need to use it as a negotiating tool. And my view is it doesn't work very well historically. So if we say to China, we'll practice retrade only when you do, they'll say, okay, fine. We won't, you won't, and then we'll end up in a Not just a trade war, but possibly a real war.
AI assessment note: “America on average is going to be better off when we open our borders”
Answered produced feed
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q about the argument of asymmetry in trade and what happens when you have one country that's being more protectionist and another one that's not. I've heard the argument, I think Paul Krugman made it, or maybe Adam Smith, I don't remember, but even when you're open and everyone else isn't, you, everyone still benefits, and that's the bottom line of this free trade idea. What happens when it is disproportionate?
A So in the 19 eighties, when the debate was over whether we should let Japanese cars come into the United States to compete with American cars, A lot of people say we shouldn't because they don't let other products of ours into their market. And my view was if they're want to harm their own citizens by keeping on American products, that's their choice. Don't confuse that with the fact that we benefit when we let in Japanese cars. There's a mistaken focus on the value of exports that somehow trades only fair. If, if we have balanced trade, that we import exactly the amount that, that, that, that they accept of our goods. It misunderstands the fact that Trade in goods is not the only thing we do. We trade in money and assets and capital surplus and services as well. And so America on average is going to be better off when we open our borders, not as much as it would be if other countries joined us and opened theirs too. People say, yeah, but we need to use it as a negotiating tool. And my view is it doesn't work very well historically. So if we say to China, we'll practice retrade only when you do, they'll say, okay, fine. We won't, you won't, and then we'll end up in a Not just a trade war, but possibly a real war.
AI assessment note: “America on average is going to be better off when we open our borders”
