&gt;  I would be surprised if one in ten readers of HN thinks international free trade can hurt an economy: it&#x27;s a nearly universally assumed good amongst the intelligentsia.<p>I&#x27;m not sure about the statistics of HN readers, however the arguments are more complicated now than when Krugman wrote the article in 1996.  See Samuelson&#x27;s 2004 criticism of free trade, revisiting his early positive results.<p>Samuelson, Paul A. (2004): Where Ricardo and Mill Rebut and Confirm Arguments of Mainstream Economists Against
Globalization, in: Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 161-180<p>cited in : <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbresearch.com&#x2F;PROD&#x2F;DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD&#x2F;PROD0000000000180080&#x2F;Samuelson&#x27;s+criticism+of+free+trade+theory%3A+unsuited+support+for+globalisation+opponents.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbresearch.com&#x2F;PROD&#x2F;DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD&#x2F;PROD0000...</a><p>Samuelson&#x27;s paper was a big deal when it came out, even in the mainstream press.<p>The paper itself: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wilsoncenter.org&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;SamuelsonJEP042.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wilsoncenter.org&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;SamuelsonJE...</a>