Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (3693)	2/3/2006 8:36:15 PM
From: White Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

You can look at this and maybe some answers are there. usinfo.state.gov

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (3693)	2/4/2006 9:08:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

If the goal isn't specifically either segregation or integration than being able to sell land is still a good thing. The segregationists in the tribe could still hold on to the fact that the tribe would still have some sort of vague partial sovereignty over the land. The integrationist would benefit from having more outside influences (and more ability for people controlling the land to enter the outside society without having to abandon the land without compensation. My point wasn't how it would serve either of these goals but how it would enable people to adjust their landholdings for the most desired of efficient use. They could buy and those own land for what purpose they want. If they need more or less they could sell some or buy some. The flexibility helps as does the fact that if they really own the land they can borrow against it to start a business or for other purposes. Tim