Dig The River

I think this justifies it.

In fiscal year 2003, Georgia’s deepwater ports directly and indirectly supported 275,968 jobs and were responsible for $35.4 billion in sales, $10.8 billion in income and $1.4 billion in state and local taxes, according to a new study released today by the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia.


  1. drjay says:

    well as a healthcare provider on the coast i can tell you i have lots of pts whose benefits come from the ila or one of the companies w/ warehouses up the road like pier one

  2. Mad Dog says:

    OH! I get it now.

    You agree with Erick that we should tax the other 10 million people in Georgia to provide benefits to those 275k folks?

    Instead of making the commercial INTERNATIONALS OWNERS pay to play.

  3. Anonymole says:

    I think the Georgia Ports Authority must have stolen Mad Dog’s girlfriend.

    What was the entire state budget of FY2003? $15 Billion? and the ports created $1.4 billion of that?

    Yeah, let’s not fund the deepening because we hate the Chinese more than we like a good economy.

  4. drjay says:

    its kinda like any other infrastructure i would think–i’m admittedly not a libertarian–so yeah i think its o.k for gov’t to pay for something like this–economic development is often an investment w/ an expected return…

  5. Mad Dog says:

    So don’t fund Peachcare, but dig a channel for international corporations for free.

    At the expense of the parents who children get no preventative healthcare…

    You sound like a caring health care provider.

    Good Job!

  6. drjay says:

    one has nothing to do w/ the other i did not say a thing about peachcare–and you know nothing about me and what i do for whom…

  7. Anonymole says:

    Mad Dog,

    That kind of reasoning is akin to selling your home to pay for the heating bill.

    Where would Georgia be without the $1.4 billion dollars in revenue created by her ports? Would Peachcare even exist?

    How many children don’t need Peachcare because of the 250 – 300k jobs created by the ports? Would Peachcare be able to withstand the additional demand created by massive job losses an uncompetitive port would create? All of this without 10% of the entire state budget?

    I can tell you what, send a bill to these international players you dislike so much and watch them laugh their way to Charleston.

    Talk about hacking off your nasal appendage to infuriate your visage…

  8. Mad Dog says:


    Thanks for the excellent set up.

    The report does not say Georgia received $1.4 billion dollars in tax directly from the economic activity at the ports.

    The report says state and local, doesn’t say which state.

    And, given the math, Georgia got screwed, collecting less than 4% on total sales reported IF EVERY PENNY WENT INTO THE STATE TREASURY.

    Nice job doing math, Anonymole, and the little ol’ business college.

    And, in case you don’t open the link, why should our ports be under foreign control while taxpayers in Rome pay to suck mud out of the river?

    Would you like a few more clues?

  9. Mad Dog says:

    More clues

    All six Georgia Coastal counties have a total population of only 453,204.

    Going by the report 275,968 worked at the ports.

    That’s impossible! The Department of Labor reports only 168,335 people in private, nonfarm employment in those six counties.

    The total retail sales for the six counties is reported at 4.865 billion dollars, not the $35.4 billion given in the report.

    Total retail sales in Georgia were only $90 billion!

    By a show of hands, how many people believe the ports generate over one third of all sales in Georgia?

    More clues? What else stinks about this report Erick says “justifies” spending public money for the benefit of private, international interests?

    The Federal Government spent $4.671 billion in the six counties, almost dollar to dollar the total retail sales.

    Does the report substract Federal Spending before reporting private industry figures?

    I’d bet not!

    According to the report, the ports generate 110,000 more jobs than the Federal Government reports working in all jobs in the six coastal counties.

    Anonymole? Have you found reality yet?

  10. Demonbeck says:

    Mad Dog,

    “The study, titled “The Economic Impact of Georgia’s Deepwater Ports in Georgia’s Economy in FY 2003,” estimates the direct, indirect, induced, and total economic impacts of Georgia’s ports.”

    You will see that the study’s title says it all. The Economic Impact of Georgia’s Deepwater Ports in GEORGIA’s Economy in FY2003. It does say which state.

    And if you think that our port impact ends in six specific counties along the coast then you clearly have your head up your hoo-ha a lot more than even I thought.

  11. Anonymole says:

    Thanks Demonbeck, at least someone comprehends how the state’s economy works.

    Mad Dog,

    Go ask poultry producers in North Georgia where they ship their chicken.

    Go ask the folks in Macon’s brand new Bass Pro Shop Distribution Center where their cargo comes from.

    Go ask the kaolin companies in Washington County how the ship their clay out of the country.

    Ask Georgia’s agribusinesses how important access to a healthy port is to them.

    Need I continue?

    As for what ratio the $1.4 billion goes to state versus local, does it really matter? It is still about 9% of the entire state budget for that year. Take that revenue out of the state and local coffers and we have a serious problem. Schools don’t get funded, people don’t have jobs, I cannot fathom how this does not translate through your thick skull.

    Mad Dog, you better start chasing your tail – it will make it harder for reality to bite you in your ass.

  12. Anonymole says:

    As for your math Mad Dog, according to the US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis:

    In 2003, Georgia had 4,921,605 jobs. If “Georgia’s deepwater ports directly and indirectly supported 275,968 jobs,” then they accounted for 5.6% of all jobs throughout the state.

    Of course, I’m not an economist, so why don’t you stick that up your calculator and tell me what kind of impact you find.


  13. Mad Dog says:

    I’m glad the debate is as always fact based.

    Anybody asked for a copy of the report?

    Oh, they have run out of copies! How sad.

    Anybody read the methodology of the report?

    Emailed the authors?

    Know which software packages were provided to calculate these results?


    But, thanks for sharing your ignorance with me.

    I was a little short. Glad you had some to spare.

  14. Demonbeck says:

    Just because you disagree with the report, it cannot possibly be factually based right?

    Yet you provide a link with the opinions of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Gene Taylor et al. and expect us to accept it as fact.

    You must be pretty blissful.

  15. Mad Dog says:

    Surely you remember the “factually based” reports on WMD in Iraq?

    As well as the many reports that we would now have 5,000 troops in a peaceful and democratic Iraq?

    If you haven’t heard that whopper in a while, the President briefing was named, “Polo” and can be retrieved online.

    Full of facts. Wrong ones. etc etc etc

  16. Demonbeck says:

    Yes, but Mad Dog, the study is only dealing with “known knowns,” not “known unknowns, unknown unknowns or unknown knowns”

  17. Mad Dog says:

    As the Fonz said, I knew that. I knew that.

    The study begins with the tonnage handled and then works backwards i.e. the ports caused the tonnage.

  18. Bill Simon says:

    OUCH, my head is splitting!

    Demon, explain, please, the concept(s) of:

    unknown knowns…and
    unknown unknowns

    And please provide conceptual examples of either case. 😉

  19. Demonbeck says:


    I would have to defer to former Secretary of Defense/Olive Branch Donald Rumsfeld to explain those concepts.

    I think he is currently Erick’s sous chef at Chik-Fil-A.

    Hurdy Gurdy Known Unknowns Bork de Bork Bork Bjork

    (That’s a number one breakfast combo)

  20. Mad Dog says:


    Nothing but empty calories in that Number 1 as compared to unempty calories found in Cheerios.

    But, the unempty calories in Cheerios are knowable to the Knowledgeable if the carton is legible.

    But the Number 1 has no empty or unempty carton to be legible or illegible even if the diner were Knowledgeable.

    You’ll know the unknows in your gut first, in other words.

Comments are closed.