News

HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.

News

Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend

News

What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?

News

MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal

News

Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options

TRADE AND DEFENSE

The Mail

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I would like to clarify your report of my comments at the Adams House seminar on international trade Tuesday to make my position clear.

The point that I made in my very brief informal remarks was that I had to recognize the great uncertainties as to what the next war would be like. Therefore I suggested that I could not dismiss out of hand all arguments based on "defense" industry claims.

I mentioned the possibility of a conventional war in Europe as an example of the kind of unlikely, but not impossible, contingency which had to be considered. However, I concluded that the problematical role of tariff protection in the event of certain unlikely wars would in almost all cases be outbalanced by the tangible benefits of expanding American trade with the Common Market.

Most of the industries which have used the defense argument have done it without any justification at all. As an advocate of free trade, I did not intend to give the impression, nor, I believe, could one infer from my remarks, that I thought that their arguments should be taken seriously. Morton H. Halperin.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags