Paul Krugman Q&A on Trump's tariffs.

Paul Krugman, given his expertise in international trade, is taking public questions in light of Trump's recent tariff announcements.

Here were some questions I sent through:

1. Is there anything to the claims that the US is the victim of dumping, and in such a case, would the WTO be effective enough to stop it without the need for the US to take unilateral action?

2. With so many Republicans claiming to be fans of the free market, would they gain anything by revisiting the teachings of Adam Smith - a man they supposedly adore but who actually defined national wealth as driven by the division of labour (facilitated by trade), rather than by the accumulation of precious metals (from merely exporting rather than importing, thereby running only trade surpluses), as was the previous logic? Or would a greater focus on Adam Smith do more harm than good?

3. If the US were to go down the protectionist route and ‘pick winners’, as per the infant industry argument, clearly aluminium and steel don’t qualify. Do any other industries qualify?

4. Could temporary support (tariff, subsidy or other) be justified as a way to slow down (not reverse) the demise of a non-competitive industry and ease the pain of that structural unemployment, even if it temporarily diverts resources from productive uses and gives an unfair advantage over foreign exporters?

5. Under what circumstances would national security be a real reason for tariffs? Adam Smith for example, said "As defence … is of much more importance than opulence, the Act of Navigation is, perhaps, the wisest of all the commercial regulations of England", despite not being favourable to foreign commerce.