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.
Read more in News
WALL STREETRecommended Articles
-
The Buzz on Fair Trade CoffeeBefore college, I didn’t drink coffee. I found the brown brew to be an unconvincing substitute for the sweet creamy
-
Professor Advocates Cap-and-TradeA cap-and-trade system is the most practical, cost-effective way for the government to limit carbon emissions, according to a paper recently published by Harvard Kennedy School Professor Robert N. Stavins and University of Manchester Economics Professor Robert W. Hahn.
-
No FairFairness is a concept central to how we view society and our interactions with each other.
-
Silent Ceremonies -
Ghosh's 'River' Is Shimmering But Shallow -
Tune In, Walk OutThose of us who walked out stand in solidarity with students (and those who would like to be students) nationwide who cannot access the ladders of opportunity that supposedly permeate the American meritocracy.
