What you're telling me is that there's a possibility that the new world order of today could be supplanted by one which would be more favorable to the United States than what we have today? Is that it? Mr. McFARLAND: Well, it would certainly appear so. I mean, I've heard of--many people have been writing about this for the past year or two, and I think we have more--I think we have a greater concentration in one form or another in industry, or at least in business, in foreign countries than we ever have before. In fact, it's difficult even for a U.S. business man, no matter how great his reputation, his connections with business in this country to go into business abroad because of some of the controls which are imposed. Now, the question is: Are these controls just temporary, or can they become very permanent? For instance, we now have the question of the European Economic Community. This is the economic, agricultural, and industrial association of six European countries and it now takes steps to become a political community, or political union. The question is this: Who's going to finance this? If it is to be funded, one way or the other, by this nation, the United States of America, or it's going to be an additional power to say a United States of Europe, which would be a political union, either there would have to be a major change in our tax laws-- Now, we have a very good record as far as taxation in this country--a good record in keeping with the fact that we've taxed ourselves into becoming what you could call one of the richest countries in the world. You have not done this at the expense of people at the lower levels. We've been very equitable with them in this respect. I think the question is this: Do we want to continue to be an important part of the world and be the greatest country in the world? I think this is a critical question that we're going to face--are we going to continue to be in control of our own destiny, or do we want to pass this on to another, some foreign country which is looking on with envy at what we have? And, so far, all they seem to be doing is waiting. They wait until they get into trouble economically, then they step in. Right now we have the problem in South Korea with a change in government. I believe the new government that we have there is looking for outside help. Now, we have a great deal of influence in this country and with other countries, and with certain groups in other countries. For instance, it is very interesting that as soon as we came out with our anti-Communist program, in 1948, all of a sudden things in Europe changed drastically. All of a sudden, things started going over there--and yet many people here think that it's not good to be in bed with the Soviet Union. Yet, the Soviet Union, with all of its problems, seems to be a very well-organized--with very capable people, and they've shown it over the past years by their ability to change their economic problems. To me it seems very important that, in all of our dealings in the world today, we realize that there's a very great difference between ourselves and the rest of the world. It's not because of religion or anything of that nature--it's because there are a great many people who have this fear of this new society. These are people who want things to remain as they were, when we were fighting Hitler and Mussolini. Now, I believe if you have a free and open market, which allows any country to go and do anything they want, that eventually you'll have the same type of situation here. For example, many years ago, there were no restrictions on the number of cars that were sold in this country, or the number of airplanes or tanks that were manufactured. Now, after a time, you see all these things going on, and then they start getting in trouble in the end. Today, the amount of national debt that has built up in the United States of America is a frightening thing for anyone to think about, or for anyone to deal with. Today, the average per capita income of the average American citizen is well over $8,000, and yet in many instances around our country, I think it's very difficult to get $5 a week. In the same sense, I think we have to be concerned about the welfare of other people--not just the welfare of our own people. And what this means is that we're spending an awful lot more money, which today could be saved. In fact, there are many, many thousands of people who are out of a job because of budgeting this money. Now, we can't keep pouring money down the drain like this. We will not be in very good shape some day soon. In fact, what is it that we are spending all this money for? We are spending it for things which we don't really need, like war bonds. What is the value of war bonds? Are the children of the future going to be better off because we had to have wars? Or are they going to have to pay for these bonds for some time to come? And when do we have to spend the money on weapons or defense instead of building hospitals and universities? Now, we're spending money on defense. The question is: What kind of defense do we need? If we just said we would like to have a war or two, just a small one to keep us busy--why, do we need war planes, and missiles, and tanks? Or is it that when war breaks out, that we will have to have these weapons which are costly? What is the best way to use these people and our resources? I believe the real question for us is this: Can we do it or not? What we're trying to do here, not only at home, but also in our dealings with other countries, is to prevent war. I think we have to change that attitude of the past, which simply said: "Hey, come on, let's all go down the street and fight," and we were going to make a war out of it, as much as we can, for financial gain. That doesn't help us now; that doesn't help us in the future. Now, I believe that it is vital to keep this as an international thing--and not in this country alone. I don't care what you call it--I don't care whether it is a UNO, or an organization; I think it would be very good if there could be international--you know, the United Nations, if it can be set up in a proper way, as an international peace organization, if such a thing could be set up--I think it would be a very fine thing. But what I'm trying to get across, as well as to my fellow Americans, is that this is very important that we keep this thing international, that we don't get into a situation where we just concentrate it, or have things centered in the United States--that we keep our finger in the game on a local basis--but at the same time allow for the future and the possibility of a broader scope of things. Now, on the domestic front, we will have to be careful--at least in this country--in the spending of money. For instance, most people feel that we should set aside money for education and for research and for science and so forth. I have an idea that if we had all that, we would probably not have a money problem as far as defense is concerned. Right now, what we're faced with is the problem of trying to keep from bankrupting our country. Because if you can tell me that the average fellow that works for an hourly wage has the capital or money to make a good investment on his own, I think I've seen a little bit of the world, and I think it's pretty hard to do. I think we've got to change some of our economic policies. We can't do it all. We can't tax the people, and put the money in the hands of government so we can spend it any way we want to. We have to keep this local, and that's what we've got to be very careful of. I would also think that this international approach, which I mentioned, would be equally important. Right now, many people have come out and say, "Now, we've got a crisis, and we're going to have a depression. We need to go this way." Now, there was a very interesting article in a recent issue of Fortune Magazine, one of the economic magazines, on the subject of the depression in America. This article pointed out that many people had been talking about a depression, and it said, "Well, we've had three very severe recessions; what would they have amounted to if they had been severe enough?" They said, "Well, they would have caused us to go into a depression." The question was, "But if you took our present national debt at that time, when we had three recessions in a row, the first time, the second time and the third time, to make that a depression, it would amount to this--the actual, present national debt that we have." And it would add up to about $16 trillion. Now, this would put us in a depression, and yet we can't seem to get this national debt down to a figure under $18 trillion. I believe that our government spends about