ShareThis Page

Jobs added due to Ex-Im

| Monday, Oct. 19, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

I believe Heritage Foundation founder Ed Feulner, author of the column “Losing jobs over Ex-Im's expiration? Don't believe it” , is wrong and University of Pittsburgh professor emeritus Raymond Richman, writer of the letter “Not crony capitalism” , is correct. Feulner has written some very good position papers but he missed the point in his column.

Without a doubt, Scientific Industries Inc. would have lost a very large order from Sinopec (China) if it were not for the assistance of some very helpful people at First National Bank in Pittsburgh with the cooperation of the Export-Import Bank. Scientific Industries has added employees at its Pittsburgh subsidiary (Altamira Instruments) and at its New York location because 60 percent of its American-made products, as of 2015, are delivered to offshore destinations. Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K filings document my statement.

The availability of the Ex-Im Bank and its designated lenders (i.e., First National Bank) are business tools that, used properly and with time, can produce a profound improvement in our economy. If somebody oversimplifies an issue, from an ideological position, I suspect they don't understand economic realities or effective business management.

Joseph G. Cremonese

Hempfield

The writer is chairman of the board of Scientific Industries Inc., based in Bohemia, N.Y.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.