"Practical Economist"

By his own definition Bernard Mannes Baruch is a "practical economist." His theory has been applied in the most hazardous of profit mediums--the stockmarket. But of Mr. Baruch, his old boss. Columnist Hugh Johnson wrote last week: "His effectiveness as a practical economist is suggested by his own magnificent solvency." Last week before the Senate's Special Committee to Investigate Unemployment & Relief Mr. Baruch had a lot to say about his country's solvency, which is currently not magnificent. He took two days to say it, and when he was through his testimony was hailed as the "heaviest gun yet brought up" against the Administration's policy, or lack of it, during the Recession.

For Bernie Baruch is a Democrat. He was Woodrow Wilson's chairman of the omnipotent War Industries Board, financed a host of Senatorial campaigns during the lean Republican years, was the heaviest single contributor to the Democratic cause in 1932. Yet Mr. Baruch has been no closer to Roosevelt II than to Hoover, Coolidge and Harding, to all of whom he furnished disinterested personal counsel and advice. But inevitably his words were taken as those of a Democrat when last week he said such things as these:

"To activate our economy we can rely on the profits system and the hope of gain, or we can try the new European ideas of state regulation and the fear of punishment. We can try either, but we can't try both at the same time. . . .

"If it became clear tomorrow that America has definitely chosen her traditional profits system, forces would be released that would rapidly hasten recovery and re-employment. . . .

"I say it with regret, but I would be less than candid if I failed to express my opinion that unemployment is now traceable more directly to Government policy than to anything that business could or should do and that if those policies are not changed, neither business nor Government can ever solve this most terrible of all our problems."

To the rabidly pro-Roosevelt New York Post this voice was the "voice of liberalism; the platform is that of Coolidge." Actually it was the typical voice of the old-line Democrat, the Democrat who would like, but does not dare, to say the same things on the Senate floor. For the Baruch testimony was by no means a one-way damnation. Asked if he thought business had done its share, the white-haired old financier replied: "Business has not cleaned up its own stable, it has not met the Government people in the fullest spirit of co-operation." Eloquently he urged modification--but not repeal--of the undistributed profits and capital gains taxes, and declared that the new tax bill with its initial reforms of the tax system might be "the leading economic event of current history." And on at least two points his practical economic suggestions coincided with Administration ideas-- wages & hours legislation, equality for farmers.

Closest approach to the kind of pleasantry with which Mr. Baruch's public utterances are ordinarily well-flavored was his estimate for Senator Byrnes of the fortune which put him in 59th place in Ferdinand Lundberg's America's 60 Families. Said Mr. Baruch: "When he [Author Lundberg] talked about my having $37,500,000--well, of course that is sheer nonsense. . . . If he would do the counting again, I would give him one-third of it if he can find one-half of it."

Senator Byrnes drawled: "I regret exceedingly to hear that statement. I have had great pride from the fact that a native of South Carolina could make that grade . . . and remain a South Carolinian and remain a Democrat."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.