12149940121232355297.jpg
  • Pares
    #6360
    Csak a te kedvedért megkerestem ezt a táblázatott abban a tanulmányban, amire hivatkoznak, és hogy milyen kontextusban és miért jött létre. Amint az bebizonyosodott, és ahogy az várható volt az ilyen kaliberű, zsideszes propagandát, dezinformációt és hazugásokat terjesztő szennyoldaltól, totális kitaláció és teljesen alaptalan ez az egész több millió bevándorlóval való ijesztgetés.

    24.-25. oldal:

    SPOILER! Kattints ide a szöveg elolvasásához!
    4.3 The impact of the quota in Option 1

    The impact of the quota can be assessed by conducting a simulation based on the most recent
    annual statistics available.51 The figures used in the simulation can be found in Table 6 and Table
    7 in Annex C.

    The models presented to the Member States did not however take account of the size of the
    Member States, when GDP per capita is used. Whereas GDP per capita allows for a comparison of
    economies that are very different in size, each Member State's size should be factored in, in
    order to avoid situations where for example Luxembourg (which enjoys a high GDP per capita)
    will be allocated a quota only based on the GDP per capita and density, without taking into
    account the small size of the country. This is why the study team has chosen to include the
    Member States‟ population as a criterion in the simulation of the effects of the two criteria
    presented to the Member States. It should thus be emphasised that the Member States have not
    seen the quotas presented below and have not had the opportunity to comment on them. The
    options presented to the Member States only consisted of the two quotas presented above. The
    quotas have been included into the report in order to illustrate the different ways in which several
    criteria impact the distribution of beneficiaries of international protection and asylum seekers. As
    will be presented in the following chapters, Member States also pointed to several other criteria that could have been taken into account in a quota system. One of them, expressed by several
    Member States, was the integration capacity of the Member States, i.e. the existence of systems,
    resources and the experience of the officials and other stakeholders in receiving refugees and
    asylum seekers.
    In order to assess the quota each Member State would have in terms of percentage of the total
    number of international protection statuses or asylum applications, the GDP distribution, density
    distribution and population distribution have been calculated (see Table 11 in Annex C)
    . By
    applying these distribution shares to the overall number of international protection statuses
    granted in the European Union, and the overall number of asylum applications lodged in the
    European Union (see Table 6 and Table 7 in Annex C), using four different weightings, the quota
    for each Member State can be determined. The models presented below are not based on any
    specific theoretical reasoning, but have been selected arbitrarily as a means to illustrate the type
    of impact the change in weighting of different criteria would have on the quotas.

    The density distribution has been calculated on the basis of the population density of each
    Member State (population/km2) and a density threshold at 200, meaning that no asylum
    seekers/beneficiaries of international protection would be allocated to the Member States with a
    population density of >200 people/km2 under this criterion.
    The density threshold is not based
    on any theoretical choice, other than the fact that it represents roughly the EU population density
    average. It may be adjusted if considered necessary to achieve another pattern of distribution
    based on density. The lower the density threshold, and the higher the weighting placed on
    density, the greater the assumed capacity of the Member States with very low population
    density.
    It should however be considered that the model does not elaborate on the reasons for
    density (i.e. geographical reasons hindering settlement, such as mountains or deserts).
    Placing a higher weight on the population density of a Member State, while keeping the density
    threshold at 200, allocates a higher share of international protection holders and asylum seekers
    to the Member States with low population density.
    ...


    + 31. oldal részlet, ahol konkrétan a táblázatra hivatkonak:
    ...
    In order to change the way in which population density factors in the final quotas, the density
    threshold can be modified. Changing the density threshold upwards will have the impact that less
    Member States will have a negative potential population capacity, and that the assumed total
    capacity of the European Union will increase sharply. Therefore, under this population density
    threshold, there are more Member States sharing the total number of beneficiaries of
    international protection/asylum seekers, although the share allocated to the Member States with
    very low density decreases.53

    53 Density distribution at a density threshold of 1000 can be found in Table 12 in Annex C
    ...

    tl;dr:

    Szó nincs arról, hogy 83 millió embert akarnak betelepíteni Magyarországra, vagy hogy "még legalább 3,8 milliárd ember számára van hely" az EU-ban. A tanulmánynak e részében különböző modelleket hoztak létre, amelyek több szempont alapján (pl.: egy főre jutó GDP, az adott ország népsűrűsége, stb.), különböző súlyozással próbálják kiszámítani azt, hogy hogyan lehetne az egyes EU országok közt igazságosan szétosztani azt a(z országonként) néhány ezer menedékkérőt és bevándorlót.

    Hihetetlen, hogy mekkora égbekiáltó, orbitális hazugságokat terjesztenek a Fideszes alternatív valóságban. Meg az is, hogy 2019-ben, amikor elméletileg (már, és még egyelőre) mindenkinek módjában áll utánanézni, leellenőrizni, hogy amit olvas, az mennyire hiteles, hihető, megbízható, tömegek vannak, akik annyira lusták, hogy mindenféle kérdés vagy kritika nélkül elhisznek minden szart, és simán tovább terjesztik. Jelen esetben 10 percembe tellett a ráadásul magában a cikkben is linkelt (!) tanulmányból kideríteni, hogy hazugság az egész. Most vagy a cikk írója sem tud angolul, és csak elhitte valamelyik másik álhír terjesztő oldalnak, majd átvette, vagy annyira hülyének nézi a saját olvasóit (akikről ezek szerint alapból azt is feltételezi, hogy nem tudnak angolul), hogy a saját cikkét cáfoló tanulmányt képest belinkelni rögtön a cikk elejére. Észbontó primitivizmus.

    Mondjuk ez az egész topik is inkább hasonlít már a zárt osztályra. Gratulálok zserni(Saintgermain?). Mindig van lejjebb.
    Utoljára szerkesztette: Pares, 2019.05.29. 14:48:01