News
Penny Pritzker Says She Has ‘Absolutely No Idea’ How Trump Talks Will Conclude
News
Harvard Researchers Find Executive Function Tests May Be Culturally Biased
News
Researchers Release Report on People Enslaved by Harvard-Affiliated Vassall Family
News
Zusy Seeks First Full Term for Cambridge City Council
News
NYT Journalist Maggie Haberman Weighs In on Trump’s White House, Democratic Strategy at Harvard Talk
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.