Don't dump it: Does Trump have a point?

Tariffs can be considered the economic buzzword of the 21st century. Thus, it should come as no surprise that Donald Trump claimed that tariffs and free trade were perfectly compactible, after condemning Chinese steel producers for 'dumping' cheap, excess, subsidised steel in the market. While this statement was politically genius (we hate China but trade is good), it is an excellent example of how tariffs are often misunderstood in the name of poor economics.

First, let us define what tariffs are; tariffs, often called import duties, are taxes on imports. 'Dumping' simply means to sell a good for less than the cost of production. Therein lies the problem; does Trump have a legitimate point?

Should China be condemned for essentially fully supporting and subsidising its relatively infantile but no doubt burgeoning steel industry? Some might argue that it is totally within a country's sovereignty to help its country's industry; but then again isn't it unfair to then sell them at a hugely lower price than Britain for example, and force people who make steel out of an industry, out of jobs and out of business.  Even more people would argue that it would be completely within countries like USA and Britain to then impose heavy tariffs in return, as part of a trade war.

This leads us to the conclusion that while Donald Trump, in certainly almost all other regards is a complete racist and ignorant individual, he might just have a point in the moral condemnation.