Comment by Pangeid correcting Antonin Scalia :) - 6:52 Italy actually is an example of perfect bicameralism, where both chambers have the same powers

Comment by Aloys - but you don't pay VAT on every single step of production, you can deduct VAT paid for materials/ingredients/tools/fuel even your business trips or phone or pc, and then the VAT is only counted once, based on final product's price

Comment by Mariano Mancone - 6:51 actually in Italy the Senate, the other parliamentary branch is not honorific, and the italian parliamentarism system is actually called "perfect bicameralism", and while up to 4 senators can be appointed honorifically each 7 years by the italian head of state it is fully elected with a pretty similar electoral law to the lower chamber, the only notable difference is that it requires 21 years instead of 18 to vote for that chamber. But in the end it's just an insignificant remark that doesn't impact the rest of the vid and the analysis. Really great job

Comment by Omit who is an accountant I trust - I'd just like to point out a falsehood here. While it is true that everybody pays for VAT in Europe, a lot of goods purchases by companies are VAT-free and even if they pay VAT, they can write it off in their corporate taxes. The whole idea of VAT is that the final "user" pays for it. Trust me. I'm an accountant.

@@hoogyoutube Great video! just a note, the age to vote in senate elections in Italy was recently lowered to 18

I dont know who wants or doesnt wants to hear this but Data, Facts and Statistics say clearly that the USA are the Richest but more or less the Worst at Handling Money. Just 1 random fun-fact for you to consider: Did you knew that Tax-Paying is in most Nations extremly quick and easy and not hated at all? Yeah, no kidding. 'Some More News' and' Second Thought' and 'Holy Koolaid' have done some epic Screwtiny of the facts, so please watch at the very least their videos about the IRS, if not many more.

Source?

@@ParmesanGoblin my source is that I made it the f##k up!

@@Touhou2006 isnt your map technically the source?

@@tishaak2800 yes

Source?

@@albertalu4583 trust me bro

@@mrtrolly4184 lol

Why do Europeans seem to think that America is just (or should be) just like Europe? When It is not.

@@Delgen1951 i dont think many europeans think that it should be.

while i do agree with you, i also think that it's important to note that while european countries are very different from each other, their various political and economic systems are left-leaning when compared to america's. like, drastically more left-leaning, to the point where people like senator sanders (who would be considered centrist/right wing in europe) is called a communist by conservatives in america.

@@lrcolville1 sanders is a self confessed socialist with no experience in actual governance, Thats not the case with most European leftists, they have been in power and are well acquainted with the compromises required to ensure effective governance.

Indeed. This is mostly because the US shouldn't be compared to an individual European country, but rather all of Europe. By that standard, it is less diverse, sure, purely because of its age, unity, and ethnic uniformity. However, its population is ~350,000,000, over double that of even Russia by a landslide, and in the same ballpark as all of Europe's 400-700,000,000 (depending on what is called 'Europe'). Additionally, its economy is roughly equal if not larger than that of Europe's, and territorially it is larger than the European Union iirc, or close. So by extension, all those who compare the US to Europe unfavourably are thinking in a very flawed way, since the US is roughly equally comparable to France as it is Albania. On average, overall, I would argue that quality of life in the US far exceeds that of Europe as such.

Realize this has only been the status quo since the nineties. 5:30

you remember all the great kids movies from the 80's when kids were still allowed to roam? I don't know any recent media that has that. Just Stranger Things I guess, but that takes place in the 80's so that doesn't count

In my family, that only applied to girls. We boys could go anywhere we want.

@@LarryWater That's sexist?!

its not just safer@@Anonymous-df8it

Yup: Exclusinve a big city US problem with their idiotic zoning laws. Small cities(not suburbs of metros) this is not true at all.

@ムクᴹᵘᵏᵘ⁴² 🏳️‍⚧️ ebikes are effectively useless with some of the distances you regularly have to travel.

@ムクᴹᵘᵏᵘ⁴² 🏳️‍⚧️ If you see someone on a ebike, they're stopping because something got jostled off the bike and it won't move anymore. Or they've been hit.

@@UKpostsTookMyNickname.WhyNot What country are you from

It's as easy as Europe cities are mostly made for people, USA cities are made for cars.

But... that also applies to Europe? Europe is not similar to itself, even.

@@nakenmil true, but more similar to each other than to America

@@wjzav1971 Really? Germany and Greece, Italy and Sweden have more similarities than US states? I'd say California and Texas have more in common that Germany and Greece.

@@bganonimouse2754 No, what I meant is that Germany and Greece have more in common than Germany and the US

@@wjzav1971 Germany and Greece is definitely way less similar than Germany and the US.

in UK, I’ll take anywhere that’s not here 🤣

same

@@Rochelle007 … so would I ):

totally agree. i feel blessed being born in NL and not in the US.

goes both ways... my favorite part of being in the US is that i'm no where near europe

I think you need to take the massive amounts of school shootings into your equation. Parents are not going to sent kids out into the world if they fear for their lives on a daily basis.

Yeah but most parents wouldn't want Darwin to take the wheel. Especially when the norm is that the kids below the highschool age can't be trusted with anything and are basically fuckin nuts

Parents are too soft these days, my parents would freak out if I just left to go somewhere without asking permission

Back before the 2000's, some teens were encouraged to go hunting and provide for the family. Meat and Fur are still profitable. You catch what you killed, family lives another week. You become the kill, family has to accept your death and look for other marketable jobs.

That's how it was for me when I was a kid growing up in the 80s. Summers were so awesome. We would spend all day outside doing all kinds of things like riding our bikes around with crushed cans over the back tire to make it sound like a motorcycle or building forts in the woods and fighting "wars" or shooting girls with water guns or climbing trees and picking crabapples. It was an adventure every day. Looking back you really experienced the world and learned early on about relationships and what works and doesn't work when it comes to dealing with others. You got an allowance based on doing work around the home, and you learned what the money could get you if you were smart. I tried to give that same freedom to my kids when they were growing up, but others didn't let their kids play outside like that and my boys didn't have anyone to really hang with so they'd keep staying in the house. Then they got addicted to tech like all kids do nowadays. It ain't healthy, and now that they've grown up we're seeing just what a mistake that all was. Adults that never matured, never gained any life experience running smack into reality the moment they go into the real world. And their response is to hide from reality. Expect others, whether parents or the government to protect and care for them. It's sad.

Are you British? I only ask because of your disdain for the word "European." Lmao

@@evanflynn8410 I think it's more ironic how the person who created the video wanted to explain why comparisons aren't all equal between countries while completely ignoring the differences that occur within individual European countries as if they're a monolith. Sure, trying to adopt things that aren't perfectly aligned with a system is naive and a simplification, but to outright reject ideas based on that same premise is just as naive.

@@evanflynn8410 as an European i have a disdain for the word "British" especially if the word "prime minister" follows they really F**d it up over there. in my opinion PS i don't have a disdain for individual british people, just britain as a hole and what i represent in europe today

Compared to the differences between Europe and the US the difference between the western European nations is negligible and not even discussed. So your point is kind of irrelevant

@@kingmuddy5898 And that shows your ignorance to the social, economic, and political differences

Yes, thank you! VAT doesn't tax at multiple points during the supply chain, if you are a VAT registered business you can claim it back.

Yup. Wanted to say this too. There are VAT prices in the supply chain that the company can get back from the finance bureau.

Hey Omit, great comment and I’ll pin it to the top. Any chance you know where I can look to see the percentage of companies refunding the VAT or writing it off as a corporate tax? That way I can also put it in the article.

@@hoogyoutube I'm a novice on the subject but in theory there's no advantage for a company in not declaring expenses to get the VAT write off, however the tax may be evaded by not producing evidence of a sale, you can find data on VAT tax evasion on the european commission's website by searching "VAP gap". Very cool style on these videos, hopefully i've been somewhat helpful.

@@hoogyoutube It's just intrinsic in the VAT system. If a company let's say buys something for 100 (+ 20 VAT; so called input VAT), processes it and sells it for 500 (+ 100 VAT; so called output VAT), they will only remit an amount of 80 (100 output VAT minus 20 input VAT) to the Tax Office in the first place. That way, at each stage exactly the added value is taxed (hence Value Added Tax). The economic effect should be broadly similar to a GST imposed on the final stage only, it's just a different way of administering it.

If you wanted to be like Finland you would have to most fundamentally, deport non europians and dissolve the federation.

@@mnSr-ng1prI gotta say that is the most dangerous place to be. To not know what the system is, why it is that way, and who you are in it. Because someone is always willing to define it for you. Not very charitably usually. If it seems charitable, check the cup for poison.

​@~m00nS74r~ Nationalism is just another vector of Socialism. You're another failed socialist utopian project. Bring back free markets!

@@mnSr-ng1pr Venezuela was economically boycotted by the entire western world. If you make a living selling oil and no one else buys your oil it is obvious that your economy will melt. Add to this the fact that the dollar is the global currency, if you stop receiving dollars you no longer have economic backing and your currency will completely lose its value. this is a catastrophe

@@mnSr-ng1pr the internet accepts everything you write

True. An important lesson i learned from a foreign policy expert was that nothing exists in a vacuum and you have to look at something that works best for the country using it, not necessarily for every country in the world. He brought up the M1 Abrams as an example: it's a great tank for some like the US but it requires an intensive logistics network from extra fuel trucks to the ability to ship that behemoth around which wouldnt work for a country like Russia and would be nearly useless to a small island nation that just needs to worry about domestic security. You need the right policy to fit the right country. I also think people tend to kind of cherry pick. They'll focus on the worst parts of America and ignore some of the good parts, and they often compare that to the best parts of Europe. People often bring up the wealthy successful nordic countries but leave out the poorer parts like Greece or Moldova, and they'll criticize the American south for being close minded and/or racist compared to Denmark but ignore how racist parts of Eastern Europe can be, and they may compare homophobia in the American South compared to the Netherlands but ignore how homophobia is also an issue across large parts of Europe. The US definitely has issues but it was also one of the first countries to legalize gay marriage (before like half of Europe), the US has had issues with back sliding on democracy but still falls somewhere in the middle compared to European countries, and with the rise of Trumpism the US has had issues with authoritarianism but most of Europe had had a similar wave of right wing populists, nationalists, and even neo-fascists gaining power with the "identity politics" becoming a major ideology in many European parties and euro-skepticism only growing.

Wzruszające, ale czy jest jakaś puenta?

@@JHeb_ Puenta wynika z filmiku

@@JHeb_ 4:55 o to mu chodzi

That's a cool story

@@williamjamessidis3488 ok sorry, nie zrozumiałem dokładnie kontekstu

Greeting from the Netherlands, also big cheese eater!

Greeting from France, biggest cheese lovers x)

Greetings from Sweden... meatballs anyone?

@@ItsTheBibby Yes please...

Scotland, also many of the cheese please, yes.

The EU itself is how the US should be run. 50 individual states with an overarching but heavily limited federal government

@@zachb1706 You're not very smart. Having a federal government is why America is so much stronger than Europe.

@@DaDARKPass my idea is literally the vision the founding fathers had for the US.

@@zachb1706 No it isn't. Your vision was what the articles of confederation were. Turns out, such a system was far too weak to work out. So, instead, the founding fathers created the constitution - this created a federal government that had the powers to collectively go to war and raise taxes - things that the EU can't. Additionally, the constitution didn't allow secession - something the EU literally allows via article 50. All of this means that while the founding fathers wanted a limited government, they didn't want it to be so limited, as the EU is. They wanted a functional government that could pass and enforce laws, but is limited by things like separation of powers and checks and balances.

​@@zachb1706i think the opposite.

@Helene Stromfors cars chips steel machine tools ships there is a reason japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world

If us Italians just copy pasted the US economy we would suffer, and if they copied ours they would suffer.

@@laqrwd Theres also a reason why the Yen's value is dropping, and so is the birth and marriage rate

Bit of a bad take here, I get what you’re trying to say but you 100% can and should take good ideas and policies and implement them if it fits for your country. You don’t need to be Japan to build a booming car manufacturing sector

@@tonyflamingo3444what does birthrate/marriage have to do with anything lmao. Both have contributing issues that have no real connection to their economy. Birth rate also just goes down the more developed a nation becomes

Danke for sending me here Kraut, great video! And I have to agree that the lack of consumer protection when it comes to the US, which regards to food for instance, is astounding

You mean 7 seasons and a movie?

Kraut, please make cooking videos.

I remember the one tiff they had about growth hormones in beef.

Oh hey Kraut just watched one of your vids a day ago

I mean the issue is with both

No one wants to keep up with all the 50 states' politics and work politics.

@@menjolno that’s because most sane residents of a state should only care about their own state politics and the federal level type politics, that’s about it.

Blaming the "Brussels Beauraucracy" is far easier than Blaming your fellow Voters.

@@cakeisyummy5755 ^^^

@@mwgaming5167 I never said that you need to sacrificing American culture, I meant sacrifices like certain freedoms, raising taxes. One thing Americans want is an affordable healthcare system. So we point out many aspects of other countries healthcare systems. Japan has one of the cheapest healthcare systems in the world. The reason for this is because it has the healthiest populations in the world. And this is because the state invests in laws and regulations to promote a healthy lifestyle and diet in its population. In the U.S, people would need to sacrifice some of the unhealthy things that some eat on a regular basis like fast food. (In terms of increased taxes). But Americans appose this. Which is evident when in New York, the governor attempted to ban the sale of large 1 liter soda bottles, which was turned down due to backlash.

@@mwgaming5167 Well dramatic tax increases for one. Healthcare is too big. There isn't enough wealthy people in the country to just get them to pay for it. We would be talking a top marginal tax bracket being applied to people who make 60k a year, like they do in Denmark. You do that and the people will revolt, doesn't matter how good the service is. Universal healthcare is certainly possible, but I'm not confident you could convince people to pay the price. The people who say 'sure. you can increase my taxes for healthcare' don't realize how much of a bite that would really be. They are thinking a few percentage points. Actually it would be more like 20% or more , if we were lucky. And of course we have a lobbyist infested goverment to implement it. I'm sympathetic to the moral argument in it's favor. I have no faith the people would be willing to pay the real price it would require, and even less faith the goverment could in fact build a better system from scratch. I don't think I'm wrong. My approach would just be reform of health care regulations, with a reduction in the total amount of regulation , but also a crack down on all the bad behavior driving increased pricing and much harsher penalties for uncompetitive practices. For example, requiring drugs to be sold under it's real name and not a brand. Then after 7 years of patent protection ( current patent law for pharma ) , generics can compete with that drug, using the same name. Reduction of barriers to entry for new people on the market. Reductions in the amount of red-tape and overhead in the medical system, with a focus on metrics for improvements in patient outcomes. Rules to encourage the creation of Amazons for health care, published pricing, honest pricing, sticker price always equals insurance price rather than all the middleman drug dealing that is being done - along with very harsh penalties for fraud or abuse. We could also make it easier for people to get into healthcare. Allow EMT's to train into nursing. Allow nurses to apprentice into becoming doctors. Our health care problem isn't a delivery or technology problem. It's a finance , capital and labor problem. If we can fix how healthcare is priced, the market will work. And it's the only option we have because it's the option that only has an upside if we can get the middlemen out, and doesn't require huge sums of money, or a sacrifice on the part of any specific group of Americans other than health care providers.

@@swordarmstudios6052 I would say get rid of life insurance for a government operated system.

😭😭😭 love your channel

Far Right nut

Do an alternate history vedio in which rich were taxed (a wealth tax) During tech boom or dot com bubble

@@cameronburke8002 epic

@@cameronburke8002 Found the redditor

As an german, may I ask what the zip code is?

@@Tarnatos14 A zip code is a string of numbers assigned to a certain area in a city. They're used to split cities up into districts.

@@Tarnatos14 postal code

@@tieman3790 ahh I now understand thanks (to "theEXalius" too)

@@qemdrive well the US loves turning old systems into things they’re not (e.g. social security)

I mean it makes sense to talk more from a European perspective because there are lots of Europeans, but I’m not even sure if it’s remotely possible to measure the amount of comparisons made between America and Europe and America and Canada.

I don't see that many differences in Canada, I've met Canadians here in the United States and nobody would have ever known they were Canadians if they didn't say it themselves. Canadians don't have much of a culture that isn't different from the United States. When Canadian nationalists tell about their differences from the United States I laugh because their differences usually revolve around what cheap fast food place they have or the slight difference in spelling.

Canada is jokingly referred to as "America's Hat" for a reason, except perhaps Quebec.

Canada and USA are pathetic countries dude

@@qjtvaddict qjtvaddict is a pathetic person dude

I hate it when I "USA citizen" am told to leave the country to really explore the world. . . .as if my SEVEN THOUSAND mile road trip in the USA did not expose me to new culture beliefs vistas food. . . . . No all that I get in reply is "Oh but it is still ALL just USA" I am getting sick of it.

@@excursor4296 yeah but what they mean is that Europe, Africa and Asia are much different then seeing the difference between someone who lives in Texas and someone who lives in Wisconsin. It is definitely much more different than anything you’ll see in the US. Ik it can be expensive but if you have the money, I recommend to go to different places, see small towns, not just the big tourist attractions. It’s fun to see the vastly different cultures.

@@hart2018 I agree. You really can't compare visiting multiple places in the US with travelling around the world. I was born in the US, and visitied multiple states there - and now I'm living in Germany. You can't compare that to visiting multiple countries in Europe, or travelling to Asia or Africa. But that's just a typical statement you always get to hear from people who have always been in the USA.

I loved exploring the "caves" (big rock overcroppings) up along the hills in our holler with my cat Kasper. Following streams to find their source. I don't think I'd ever wanna raise a kid in the city.

You guys forget that in the end your cultural similarity is what keeps your giant country together. If you really were that culturally different you would have independence movements pretty quickly. You can see that all over the world. It‘s kind of ironic that you have experienced such a low amount of cultural diversity that you start to think the other things can’t be different and because of that keep on avoiding chances to experience other cultures.

Awwwww

@@YakuiMeido It's sarcasm

@@Anonymous-df8itHow do you know? I can't tell if he's sarcastic or not

@@racool911 The mother is deliberately setting things up, so the commenter doesn't gain independence

In US you *have* both. You pay twice as much for healthcare as second most expansive country (France) and you don't have an universal healthcare.

@@paulster185 But, clearly, you don't pay it in tax, you pay it insurance fees, and 5-6 digit healthcare costs. This is clearly, clearly much better than taxes.

@@jurajsintaj6644 Sarcasm?

@Jimmy Lowhoes But your experience is anecdotal and not the majority. It's also getting worse and worse in big cities. It's not safe for kids to go to their friends houses across town because of dangerous roads, lack of safe pedestrian/bike infrastructure, and down right terrible public transit. You don't have "real" freedom until you can drive. Again, this isn't to say it's bad everywhere in the US. Them walking to school was an example, but you seem to understate how much freedom that gives to a kid (and time freed up for the parent). They don't just walk to school, but to the store, their friends, arcades, etc.. They don't have to wait to turn 16 to leave the one mile radius around their house without their parents.

@@sillyrosster perhaps that is why he said "I feel luck for the freedom I has as a kid" the guys is just saying he is glad he had freedom, not that everyone does, so ur comment is literally pointless

@@sillyrosster I live in a suburban area, I had the freedom to walk to school to the store and to friends houses, etc. Because they were close to me. Most Suburban and small town Americans do have the European “freedom” of not always using a car. In rural areas you do need a car because you are in the middle of nowhere. In cities you don’t have as much freedom because cities are full of crime in poorer areas.

@@user-wi4cs8sg8q Well, I grew up in a suburb, and I couldn't even walk home from a place that was a 10 minute walk from my house until I was 12 years old. Because in California, if you let a kid be alone before age 12, Child Protective Services will come after you. So that's what my parents did, even though they thought it was bullshit. So I wouldn't necessarily say that suburban kids are freer than urban kids. In fact, it might actually be worse, seeing as you need a car to get around the suburbs. (though perhaps it's different in other states, especially Texas, Utah, or Oklahoma (which all recently passed free range kids laws)). Small towns though, I could definitely see kids being more independent there.

@@techtutorvideos again your complaining that your countries/states landmass is large. How are we supposed to fix that problem? Global warming could solve your issue with Florida having large neighborhoods.

The car-centric of the US also leads to a social divide. If someone can’t afford a car they are basically fucked.

i don't understand you guys that prefer walkable cities to spacious spread out cities. Space is a luxury. I'm atlethic and could walk 15 miles per day but the comfort of parking my car in front of the store i have to go is more important. you can't do that in european crowded streets, almost never

@@karlk.6819 See that’s the issue, it’s built for cars not humans. Cars need maintenance, gas, stickers, insurance etc. Roads are stretched out for really no good reason. I’m lucky to live in Toronto without a car, but outside of it I’m reliant on a faulty bus system. Walkable cities imo offer more freedom, shops and amenities are closer which in turn makes everything more pleasant. In the US/Canada it feels like a trek getting to the store by crossing the parking lot. If most cities had a public transport system to match it, it wouldn’t be too bad, but this is rare. It’s really frustrating :/ My mom used to say Being without a car in California is being without legs.

@@karlk.6819 Because there is no need for it. You can park your car at one point in the city and than enjoy the city itself

@@brrrrrrrr8793 mmm...what if you need to transport the elders? or move stuff around? or there is really bad weather? I think your perspective works great if you're a tourist, reason why european city center is great for vacations. Way less for everyday, challenging, life.

That Scalia bit was some high octane trolling. All of the many factual inaccuracies read as deliberate; he was just engaging in some of the extremely spirited, disingenuous, arcane equivocation of the sort that the now defunct old guard of the American Republican party turned into a high art. This is what would degrade into the schoolyard make believe, bring tinkerbell back to life type stuff that makes up the trump era.

@@methyod Yea, as someone who follows European politics closely... Its a lot of nonsense and just not at all how it works.

Thank you, I was just wondering if he was just being ignorant or deliberately lying

Same for France. The Sénat is as important as the Assemblée Nationale.

I'm not an Italian, but I always thought the "Senato" is basically powerless

Yeah. And people used to identify with their states before they identified with their country. People would be Virginian first, and an American second. Now it is flipped. It was a pain to get the country formed, because you had to get almost full approval from every state.

When it was a confederation sure, but not after we ratified the constitution

So kinda like the EU

@@randomname8616 Yeah.

@@randomname8616 no, the EU is a joke.

can you elaborate a little? What's wrong with parliamentary systems?

​​@@littlemissmello Its easier to push legislation through. Thats what the clip about the bicameral system and honorific positions was talking about. The US govt. systems, even at the state level, were made specifically to make it hard for politicians to enact stuff. This is in order to prevent abusive laws, powergrabs, etc. from getting pushed through by a stacked government (when a large part of the govt. is controlled by one group or party.) Your bill basically has to appease EVERYONE to be able to pass through the system, which is why most bills get altered endlessly untill they finally appease everyone. For the most part (as an American) to me it is good, because the intended innefficientcy prevents sudden power grabs, explotations, and regime changes purposely OR under the guise of dling something positive. However the side effect is that sometimes it can take multiple decades to have any substancial changes be made even when they are actually needed AND sometimes the biases of our aged representatives (term length limits are varied accross different positions) get in the way of progressing things to a better place. Edit: This is a quick n dirty description, I'm a muscian and programmer so Im not really able to present a hyper detailed recolection of our whole system that would actually be understandable to someone who wasnt raised learning about this system in school.

@@lastwymsi I don't really understand, how easy do you think it is to get a fascist govenment in power in a parliamentary system? There's always a million other parties that also have a vote, regular elections that are well organized so as many people can vote as possible, a system that can only ever work on compromise. A party is easier to start and to bring to a national stage but at that point they will have to appeal nationally as well and that is it's own challenge. The system in America however is not at all immune to abusive laws and power grabs, as the QAnon president has showed us. Presidents elect supreme court judges AND they stay for life!? A two party system is at times barely democratic if you don't mind me saying. To a point it's what we're used to that we prefer, but it's hard to look across the ocean and not frown at the flawed system that's presented so proudly as The Best In The WorldTM

@@littlemissmello Trump did relatively little to the country, I don't know what kind of propaganda you've been reading but what little he did do was easily reversed by our current geriatric president. The two party system is only tangential to the main point which was bicameral legislature, George Washington was adamantly against the system itself and nobody has ever really enjoyed it regardless, the only reason its still two party is because of third parties being such poor choices in general, libertarian party for example is far too extreme in its views to ever be treated seriously, same for the green party.

@@littlemissmello They have two parties that get most of the votes, we in Norway for example have like 5-7 at the lowest where they can group together to get the 50% neccessary. powergrabs are easy in the US because of the two party "system" they have. in Germany there were three major parties when the NSDAP came in power. take what I say with a pinch of salt because I am writing this just from memory

I had this freedom growing up in the states (Texas). My mom would go on business trips and I'd just be left to take care of myself for a week. I walked to the grocery store, to the bus stop for school, and even tag along some of my mom's business trips and explore the city while she was working. There were plenty of instances where I was out late and she didn't really know exactly where I was but it was never a problem because I always came home and I never got into trouble.

@@gugibugi0 Bullshit. I live in one of the most criminal cities in germany and its still extremely safe. Children ride their bike to school, people go out clubbing alone. Europe is as safe as ever.

@@sokolo161 Good to hear I guess but I've heard the opposite usually. I'm from the Balkans and I've never felt unsafe in my life.

@@gugibugi0 The reality is that many people are pretty islamophobic here and elsewhere and portray immigrants as the boogeyman. The consequences since 2015 have not been drastic at all which doesnt fit their narrative. Crime has been steadily decreasing with no rise due to immigration at all. Germany is as safe as never before. The media is still overrepresenting immigrant crimes to a much greater degree tho. Some people really believe they are in imminent danger because of the media sensalization but most people live exactly the same way as 10years ago.

@@gugibugi0 Since when are immigrants automatically criminals and bad people? And your comment about them "diluting" the cultures here is bullshit. In my experience the recent immigrants try their hardest to be integrated into our community. Trust me, I live in a country where nearly half of the population is foreign. If anything, it is immigrants from neighbouring countries and other european countries not wanting to be integrated... Get your head out of your ass and see the world from a different perspective.

We don't really do that anymore. It probably has something to do with most people getting plastic gallons of milk instead of cartons, though even cartons of milk don't have missing people on them anymore

Except it isn't. Maybe as a veiled threat or to be overly ominous, but only in fiction.

It's not just that, I've seen mentions in the US about these amber alert things that would go out on news channels and electronic highway road signs, even before mobile phones were a thing. That's a huge obsession over missing children, many of which I would assume were just rebellious and returned home later. Europe has and never will do such a thing, because it's so common and most children do return home, actual criminal kidnap of children is very low, but US media gives a false impression it is happening all the time.

@@cattysplat US media is unfortunately hyper sensationalist. They are incentivized to push the most shocking stories to bring in the most money possible. If a panic makes people want to know more, then those people will buy access to said information. Also, because of the sensationalist nature combined with the political split, the media tends to act as a foil for the dominant political party, more often than not. In addition, political parties have tried to steer US media in order to drive public opinion toward or away from something. Probably the most egregious of these was the cover up of the Holodomor by the New York Times. Generally, people eventually get tired of the fear mongering and gravitate to other media sources that cause public opinion to shift again. The so called "political pendulum" at work. TLDR this is a 30000 ft overview but basically, the media try their best to control the sheep. They have found that fear is an easy to use motivator. The problem for the media is fear doesn't guarantee loyalty. therefore, it is less news and more political in nature.

@@cattysplat Not really what an Amber Alert is. It takes a LOT of specific information in order for an Amber alert to be activated. You can't just activate it cause you haven't seen your kid today. lol If an Amber Alert has been activated then you can be VERY confident a child has been taken. No system is perfect of course and there have been some Amber Alerts go out that should not have but those tend to be rare and wont get news coverage. Amber Alerts were created after a child named Amber was taken (and killed) and there was no way to have multiple Police agencies communicate and get information out for people to look out for specific vehicle or person in a specific area. Because of Amber Alerts over 600 children have been saved from abductors that most likely would have done horrible things to those children.

The democratic party is only "conservative" (or free market oriented if you will) in the economic sense. Culturally speaking they are still progressives. On the other side, republicans are also less conservative culturally speaking than their European counterparts.

Not really. You have more parties but the spread of ideology is pretty similar. I would say the US is more economically conservative than most European countries, but it’s not like there are a high number of communists and fascists in European and only a small number of general center-left/center right voters. No matter the country, the biggest parties are almost always the center left (democrats, SDP, Labour, etc.) and center right (Republicans, CDP, Conservatives, etc.) The difference is that in America we don’t split the factions into different parties, they are just coalitions within the larger parties (like the progressives and blue dogs in the Democrats).

@@kaisertreu6276 they are “progressives” with massive quotation marks. Still very much conservative from a uk perspective.

Yeah like imo you should have at least one party for each combination of the 4 basic political quadrants: cultural left, cultural right, economic left, economic right. Those 4 can give you 4 political profiles of: - Cultural left & economical left - Cultural left & economical right - Cultural right & economical left - Cultural right & economical right Yet the US only seems to have "cultural left & economical right" (democrats, broadly speaking) + "cultural right & economical right" (republicans, broadly speaking). This imo just leads to unavoidable mix of interest of what voters want from their party, so even if one of the two parties wins there'll always be a large portion of their voter base that won't be happy with whatever direction they'll take.

@@Big-Chungus21 Implying the UK parties are more progressive? What are some of those policies that the Democrat's don't support?

You guys will get there! Probably first need to eliminate boko haram and get the different peoples in nigeria to be less hostile to each other...and stay away from the chinese. They are actively and knowingly debt trapping countries that are trying to develop so that they will go bankrupt and be forced to sell parts of their country like ports, building projects, land, universities etc. back to china to pay for it. But things are improving and just dont give up trying to make your country better!

@@cameronspence4977 Most east African country’s are already trapped. Unfortunately China has started to debt trap outside of Africa. Currently they are getting the U.S. and Canada debt trapped to them.

@@darth3911 China is actually developing Africa unlike US and EU nations.

@@dexorne9753 Difference is the U.S. only provided FREE military development. They done nothing with social/architecture development. China on the other hand is as you said developing Africa but not in a good way. There development provides jobs ONLY to Chinese citizens and require said African country’s to agree on giving up farm land to China. It’s kinda like a new form of colonialism but instead of colonizing the Chinese are only taking land for resources.

Trust me you dont want to be like america. Its an absolute nightmare unless youre rich

"If the United States were to adopt Social Democracy, as implemented in the Nordic Model, it would inevitably collapse" You see, that's their goal.

@@nonyafkinbznes1420 Thank you for taking the time to read my comment! Most people wouldn't do that before writing a reply and yes, I agree with your statement of that being their goal.

I can't believe I had to scroll so far to see this comment. Great insight.

@@eshankulkarni2843 Thank you for your kind words! 😊

lol

Put in the pinned comment :)

That guy sounded very dodgy.

there is another thing that is hugely different in europe versus US. We don't have too much separation between executive and legislative , but we have a multiparty system and our citizens vote for directly for our politicians(not via some electors) . What this means is that if a politician or a party messes up or try to get too much power , it will be sent to oblivion. There are lots of parties or people that were popular and now nobody hears of them anymore because they failed to meet people expectation in europe. In US you can just choose the lesser evil between those 2 parties which will last forever, with no real chance of different opinions to make it through to the executive or legislative sector

Yeah that guy was way oversimplifying and talkng as if UK = Europe, while still getting the situation in the UK wrong

@@danielstan2301 Exactly, if you look at the political landscape here in Italy, it's far different than how it was even 15 years ago. In the US on the other end it doesn't really seem to have changed much, except maybe that now socialist views are getting a little more traction thanks to people like Bernie

it's just new. I bet it will grow a lot if the author keeps it up

Even the differences between America and Britain are massive and most Americans don’t understand that, they assume the rest of the western world is just like them with the exception that they speak another language. I’d live in the EU over Britain any day, but I’d live in Britain over America even more.

Yes and letting the rest of the world die

@@thelegend_doggo1062 You have described far too many Europeans I've had to deal with my guy. It very much goes both ways. All the time I see Europeans bashing the U.S. for its ways all over the internet and all they are ever proving in doing so is that they don't know shit about the U.S.

@@thelegend_doggo1062 I've been living in the UK for 4 years now and I cannot wait to go back to the US. The US is a big place though; I'd certainly rather stay in the UK than live in places like Los Angeles or the deep south.

Ultimately the reason to the horrible prices in housing, education and so on, is that the rich make the rules for themselves. 90% of the Americans have no political power according to a Princeton study, which is worse than ever after WW2.

Absolutely agree. American values don’t call for an over abundance in government control and guard rails. So really a big way to not have this happen is to get government out of these things/fields etc…. The more the private/public sector work in tandem with government the worse off the average citizen will become

@@ryanwinters7120 There is no robust evidence of government being the real problem, if the government happens to be in democratic control. In many European countries government control works actually better than privatization. For example the public healthcare system in a typical welfare state is multiple times more efficient than private healthcare in countries that don't have public healthcare, when looking at not only quality per dollar but e.g. the swiftness of the process, too. I don't know about those "American values" either, since during Reagan's presidency 70% of Americans thought the access to free healthcare should be in the constitution, and in fact 40 % thought it already was in the constitution. Now 60 % are for free healthcare, but the elites do not of course want that, because the current system makes them money. So, I would say that the problem is rather the lobbying than the government. Believe it or not, it has always been the case that democracy produces the most well-being. The fear of government is irrational, because actually the highest and most stable economic growth ever in America was in 1950s to 1970s, during the most "intrusive" governmental control in 100 years. At the time studying in university was virtually free, and the only reason USA didn't introduce a Universal Basic Income to eliminate poverty, was because Democratic Party opposed - because they demanded rising the proposed amount of UBI.

... Yeah, they have a bad history of Propaganda regarding over taxing. Initially: no tax. American colonists raid French colonies, which triggers a war between France and Britain. it's long, global, and Expensive. Britain attempts to defray part of this cost by way of a one time levy on the colonists in their American colonies: Part of the cost of Only those troops garrisoned in the colonies to defend them, and Only the cost incurred During the war. Remember, there is NO OTHER TAXATION of the colonists at the time, their administration and security (among other things) are Entirely paid for by the regular tax payer back in Britain. The colonists, as a group (well, the wealthy ones who have the ability to get involved in the decision making and would bear the brunt of the costs, anyway) Refuse to pay this levy. This is, by most definitions at the time, Open Revolt. The standard solution to open revolt by basically every country is to send in the troops and put down said revolt... ideally by way of just showing up and arresting people, but that almost never works and the backup plan is bullets, bayonets, and fire. Britain (it should be noted, that when I say Britain here, I mean the Elected Parliament, the King had nothing to do with any of this decision making until later on, and very little even then) looks at that and realises it's a dumb idea. The whole point of the exercise is that they're short on cash. Sending in soldiers is Expensive, the very expense they're trying to cover. So instead, the institute a Stamp Duty. This amounts to 'you can't import or export anything without an official stamp on it, and we charge you for the stamp'. This has two advantages: the colonists can't just not pay it, and it can be used as a punitive measure instead of sending in the troops. Note that the stamp duty was still the only tax the colonists had to pay, was still less than the taxes paid by people back in Britain, was very low compared to those paid by citizens of any other European Empire, and still only mounted to reducing how much the British Taxpayer was Subsidising the colonies, because to my understanding it still didn't cover the administration and defence of the colonies, let alone any infrastructure projects and the like. Also note that at this point NO ONE has said anything about representation, At All. This is the point where the population of the British colonies in American start splitting into 'loyalist' 'revolutionary' and 'don't care'. About equally. And the revolutionaries start stirring up riots and engaging in assassinations of administrative officials and loyalists. Much is made about being taxed to pay for foreign wars... expect the war the colonists were taxed to pay for was one they started. Sure, the British 'won' (and, if I'm not getting my wars muddled up, gained France's Canadian colonies out of it), and the American theatre ended up being basically a sideshow in the actual fighting, but foreign it was not. I'll admit, I'm less clear on the specifics of this part, but somewhere along the way Benjamin Franklin and others are sent to Parliament to negotiate on the matter of taxes and independence and such. This is a fundamentally doomed prospect for several reasons. One: The revolutionaries spend the entire time gearing up for a shooting war, and commit to (and start) it Before Franklin's Party Returned From Britain. Two: The revolutionary's position wasn't 'no taxation without representation'. It was "no taxation. Period." The entire reason this came up was because the colonists Were Not Taxed while costing the government a fair bit to maintain (all the more so when they start wars with peer global super power!) prior to this series of events, and the colonists were British citizens, so parliament wasn't having any of that nonsense. Somewhere during this diplomatic mission is when the concept of representation comes up... in the form of a journal entry or letter by one of the members of the American group... which notes that they're never going to have any success in convincing parliament to see things their way unless they first have at least one representative of their own In parliament to act on their behalf. (frankly, even if they had their own MP, it wouldn't have worked because, again, their entire position began and ended with 'no taxes! at all! ever!'.) As for the king, his entire contribution to the issue was that, at some point, he received a letter from the colonists complaining about the taxes. This being the first he'd heard of the matter, he went and asked is relevant advisors... The heads of the government departments responsible for taxation and the colonies. You know, the ones responsible for the entire tax issue coming up in the first place. Who, of course, tell him it's a minor issue that is all under control and almost resolved (They weren't even being in any way dishonest. At the time, from their point of view, it was true!), leading to the king writing a letter back to the colonists that... perhaps wasn't the best thought out in terms of tone, but it basically amounted to 'thank you for communicating your concern, The matter is being resolved, also refusing to pay your taxes or engaging in armed uprisings are acts of rebellion of the sort that would obligate me to send soldiers to deal with the matter, so don't do that.' ... ... That was literally all he did. The rest was all the elected parliament (ministers and such being chosen from among the members of parliament) Oh, and as an added bonus: After the American colonies gained their independence, they now had to pay for their Own administration and defence, Without heavy subsidization by the British tax payer... and with most of the loyalist colonists having buggered off to Canada, when they hadn't been killed (shrinking their potential tax base). Taxes, consequently, went WAY, WAY up... and never came back down again. That's right, those terrible taxes imposed upon the colonists under the British... were less than any tax ever levied by the independent American government since. Which is to say, No, the American Colonists were NOT over taxed under the British. Extra bonus: If representation had actually been the goal (it was Never Mentioned prior to recruitment propaganda, remember), it could have been attained with hilarious ease: All the colonists had to do was say 'yeah, we'll pay the same (ish) taxes as people back in Britain for the same (ish) benefits... starting with our own MPs, of course'. But again, representation wasn't the point. It was very much about not paying taxes. Specifically, it was about RICH and Powerful people not paying taxes. (and, you'll note, ceasing control of the governmental body that actually did the taxing has done a spectacular job of allowing them to either not pay taxes, or funnel the taxes back into their own pockets, ever since.) Basically, A small number of particularly wealthy businessmen and land holders ruining everything for everyone else (and lying about it in the media)to line their pockets... ... ... it's almost like nothing's changed!

@@laurencefraser whoa man, did you really just type all that? I mean, I gotta raise my hat for that

In Sweden, Parliament (Riksdag) is unicameral. It elects and can depose the prime minister or any other member of the cabinet. The Prime minister can dissolve Parliament. To safeguard against tyranny the government cabinet (Prime Minister + ministers) has no control over the government agencies. The agencies are also autonomous with regard to each other. Sweden can therefore operate without a cabinet. For example, during the current pandemic, it is The Public Health Agency that is "in charge". The director-general (of The Public Health Agency) is the central figure, not the prime minister. Also as a side note, the military forces are under the command of Parliament, not the cabinet.

I'd like to point out that after WW2, Germany got a constitution that also asked _how could this be abused_ at every corner, and many other european countries either rewrote or modified their constitutions in this this regard. Yet we don't end up as gridlocked, while in my opinion being more resilient in that regard. The fact that Trump was not impeached is considered very outrageous here. Making it so hard to pass something or passing a vote of confidence can also be a bad thing. In Germany and various other countries, we have for example the constructive vote of no confidence, which requires the opposing movement to put up an alternative candidate, therefore, you don't remove the chancellor/prime minister, but replace them. This enshures that the office doesn't become vacant and also makes the "bar of entry" more flexible: instead of requiring a rather rare 2/3 majority, the parliament has to find somebody they can agree on. Or like the comment above me shows, in some the country doesn't rely on a cabinet to exist. In general, we distinguish more between "the government" and "the state", former only being the cabinet itself and the rest of the executive branch being more independent from them. Sure, the government often appoints their leaders, but they can work on their own and in many cases it is unusual to replace every agency's head with an administration change. And yes, the military usually reports more to the parliament than the government, latter may be the official commander in chiefs but often they can't order a lot without the authorization of parliament. Also, many european countries have rather formal second chambers, but that doesn't mean that they have no power, most often it's just practice here to not interfere too much. Their theoretical power is not always less, just often not used, and more considered an emergency break that if not needed stays silent. Doesn't mean we have less division of power, and usually we have voting systems for our primary chamber that are considered more representative than FPTP. Edit: spelling

@@einereinar Bravo! What a superb reply. The sentence: "In general, we distinguish more between "the government" and "the state", former only being the cabinet itself and the rest of the executive branch being more independent from them." is spot on. I very much enjoyed reading what you wrote and I hope more people read it too. 👍

@@gindrinkersline3285 Thank you very much :)

@@einereinar I think the issue is that you're comparing apples to oranges, in a state, laws get passed relatively quickly. In the federal government, it is gridlocked by design to ensure that whatever binding action the federal government makes has to be thoroughly discussed and passed by a supermajority. The U.S is a federal union, its basically 50 different nations under one umbrella, and the federal government must operate knowing the delicate balance of each states' "sovereignity". Imagine if the EU passed laws as quickly as a parliamentary unicameral legislature, There's little to no input by the minority government as the majority has the full reign of legislative power. How many nations that was represented by the minority government be sidestepped by a simple majority vote?

I am an American an I am genuinely asking you how you are doing? I Watch your videos a lot. Keep up the great work! I agree with you, people over here are more socially aggressive.

Ok but how expensive is your gouda tho?

I am Canadian and have traits, people here like to look friendly and nice even if they don't care. It can be hard to tell, and I usually assume it's just a greeting unless I know the person.

Think of it as a way of saying “Hello.” When you hear it say “Good, how are you?” back.

i'm raised in the US and have the same issue i default to the "good how are you" version because it's the least likely to cause some awkward issue

part of the problem too is that American politicians campaign by promising to address issues that should be handled below their level. But if a candidate wanted to do their job properly, they would be seen as weak for not addressing those issues.

remember that many problems' solution involves spending money, and the federal government has much more in the purse. Plus: if they collect taxes, they should be expected to provide services. if states were going to try to fix everything on their own, more rural states would not be able to implement most programs or "problem fixes".

@@kareemellebany3559 taxes should be used to pay for public services. Finding a service to spend excess taxes on is backwards.

@@bobmcbob49 this is not what I meant. I mean that the Federal government's power to collect taxes and the amount it can collect enables it to better plan for services. in the US, there is no "excess taxes". There is a shortage of tax money. My point is that leaving most programs that need strong spending to local governments will lead to a California and New York with all the good services and Wyoming/Kentucky with bad/no services.

@@kareemellebany3559 California and New York have greater needs to go with their greater incomes.

The interesting difference is that the US was founded by rich slave owners, and democratic forces are usually militantly suppressed, e.g. Abraham Lincoln. Many European countries have been if not founded, mostly affected by the interests of the working class. Another interesting thing is that the rich are becoming more powerful everywhere. 90 % of Americans seem to have no political power (Gilens and Page, 2014). At the same time, interestingly as well, relative poverty has increased.

@@ilmari435 I mean the definition of political power is interesting, and it's definitely not related to the country being founded by rich slave owners. Europe was comprised of Kings and Queens with complete authority for the longest time. Subjects had no power, and so while stronger government seems like a progressive ideas to Americans, it actually is more idealistic of much older European theories. At the same time, voting in the US is 1 person to each vote, so any perceived addition or subtraction in political power is simply that- perceived. It's a cultural thing. With all of that in mind, you have to remember that Britain was a colonization and enslavement powerhouse for the longest time. That's why Africa was in turmoil under the for years, and their occupation allowed for slave owners in Africa to trade other African individuals to America colonists. If anything to get from this, I mean to say that the US was founded guns blazing and with the idea that everyone needs to fend for themselves and carve their own way, while Europe has always been a continent with pretty simple leadership roles. Neither is better, neither is worse, but the whole world has a lot to improve on.

@@frosty_puffz1986 good points though a bit irrelevant maybe IMHO. Most of the European countries' constitutions have been written by mostly working class interests, and the role of kings and the like has not really affected them. But now we are approaching an interesting topic: some people seem to consider gov't strangely unnecessary. To me that sounds odd: how could the United States ever have shaped to what it is now without governmental action. Stealing land from Indians and other colonies and so on I mean.

And what do you think about the statistic mentioned, that comparing laws to interests the bottom 90 % don't have political power? Because this is pretty recent regress, in the 1930s America was one of the most democratic countries ever.

@@ilmari435 do you know the American government killed about 20% of the native population on the high end of estimates? They killed what was left after the Spanish, British, French and disease ended the vast majority of the native population. Colonial powers toppeled both the Aztec and Incan empire. What is your European colonialism worth now? Gold? This does not excuse what America did. The American government was well into a phase where it should have known what was right. But instead it finished the job that European colonialism had started Not to mention, most of America's founding fathers did not begin life in America owning slaves. And I would add they procured them through European power. Right now we are both defending the indefensible, so please stop. We should figure out how the situation can be helped instead of just spewing what we think we know about history.

There's a lot of truth in that. The States vary quite a bit.

I mean, Canada works just fine and their provinces have a way higher degree of autonomy compared to US states so...

@@TheWaross What he is saying is not the issue of where the power is but where the people's focus is. Americans, like most of my family for instance, focus almost entirely on the federal government, however where I live in Washington state for instance, alot of people have begun looking at the state government due to strives we have taken to rely on the state more than the federal government. Access to affordable health care has been the big focus and is better than in many other places I have lived. If more Americans focused on and held our State governments responsible things would likely improve. But Americans ignore the power and ability of the State Governments, and the state government officials wait for the federal government to do thigns so they can push blame away from themselves, get re-elected and keep making their massive wages.

These channels cater to such r***rds. The formal structure is irrelevant if your political elite all conform to the same beliefs.

The state government absolutely does not have more power than the national government

It’s always crazy to talk to Euros who don’t understand this. Like bro… my state is the size of multiple of your countries. And we have the same population.

For grade 8-10 I walked 2 hours to get to school and 2 hours to get back (couldn’t be on the bus because I kept getting punched by the bullies lmao) in the winter, the big fancy houses would never shovel the snow off the sidewalks which since I live up north, could go higher than my knees. I had to walk in the road alongside cars and 16 wheelers. It was like, a half stroad or something. It led to an interstate. When I went into 11th grade, I transferred to a different school that was a five minute walk from my house. Crazy shit.

​@@nine1690A point that's always fascinated me is, were it not for roads, parking lots, etc, things would actually be quite-a-bit closer together. One extra thing is the US puts more emphasis on lawns and backyards, and while I prefer them, many people seem to feel that sacrificing those for the sake of closer amenities is a trade worth considering.

@@Mega-Brick I ain’t sure how me not having a backyard is gonna shorten the 80 miles worth of forests and farmland between my town and our state capital. The US is just bigger, and has less colonized land. You’re explaining why cities and suburbs may be larger, but missing the fact that rural America is where most of the distance comes into play

@@nine1690 The state size isn't the problem, it's city and town design. Free parking and subsidized roads mean people living in the boondocks get a bunch of services and infrastructure that they don't really justify

1) Certain divides equally exist in Europe, look at the still present East/West divide of Germany with vast differences economically. Or an even bigger example, Belgium. Split between what's essentially the Wallonian rust belt and the more service oriented Flanders. They even speak different languages, now that's a divide of needs and customs. 2) A true patriot would care. I don't have kids yet I feel child benefits are necessary. I won't ever get cervix cancer but fully support national health insurance covering it. Taxes are for the benefit of society, not oneself.

@@mormacil that last sentence is the issue. America is much more family oriented than societal. If it benefits my family I want it, if it harms my family I don't. This can be extended to a regional level. The south wants low property taxes, the north wants low business taxes, those ideas clash and you get low taxes across the board, both want what's best for their "family" everyone else be damned. rural communities don't want their tax money going to public transportation, because they don't benefit, so you get a divide between rural vs urban that ultimately leads to nasty protest and violence.

@@davidvandervoort4945 That's really sad. I do agree with mormacil, though; a true patriot would support the overall bettering of their society.

@@maildaemon many American patriots consider other Americans apart of there family on an international scale, but on domestic issues the lines are drawn thick. There is no way I am going to pay for someone else medical bills (through taxes) when that money can be used on my family. Society can turn on you instantly, because they don't need you, your family on the other hand does.

​@@davidvandervoort4945 It's interesting to hear the mindset and perspective of Americans. I live in a country with universal health care, and it's very popular. No political party is going to dare to repeal it as it would be politically very unpopular. My thinking on universal health care is that yes, we pay for it through tax (there's a 2% tax levied on income for it), and while it does benefit society, it also benefits you and your family. Without universal health care, health care costs can be very costly, even with private health insurance. You can be left thousands or tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket even with private health insurance. The cost for an individual and their family can be much higher without universal health care than with it.

Actually, that last clip is entirely misleading in my opinion. Yes the executive and legislative are not separated in the same way in many European countries, but that comparison falls down in equating a PM to the US president. The US president has (in my eyes) ridiculous powers with executive orders left and right, each president undoing and outdoing the one before. European PMs have no such power, decisions can only be taken with the legislative as a whole. And that is where the other major difference comes in, which is that most European nations don’t have a legislative (voting) system that leads to a two-party state. These nations always have governments formed out of coalitions of competing parties and/or minority governments that need support from parties outside the government to get anything passed at all. On top of that, as time goes on there is increasing fracturing of parties and increasing difficulty of forming coalitions/governments. As a result I believe that both the US system and the European system result in slow progress in the long run. In the US because there is a constant flipping back and forth giving a volatile, but on the whole slow moving system. In Europe there is a much more stable, but very difficult to get moving system resulting from the endless amounts of consensus needed in the legislative. On the whole I prefer the European system as although it is slow, generally I see it moving in the direction of good. The US system on the other hand seems to allow for slow movement towards the bad to be hidden by the constant flipping back and forth. But then, I’m European, so maybe I am biased…

US States are supposed to function like European countries. America itself has been a litteral Union for basically forever. The best thing about American Union-Members/States is the fact that they all actively contribute to the country, and are perfectly fine if their state loses out a little bit in favour of some other state. Zero animosity betwene them. Thats probably why its easier to setup business across america, than it is Europe.

@@wich1 very good points made, however movement toward good or bad is fairly arbitrary. The US political system is suffering at the moment from volatility, but this is the exception and not the norm. Intense party rivalry is driving a downward rhetorical spiral but in terms of actual legislation, it’s stagnant. For most of US history having only two parties forced the political system to moderate as both parties had to find consensus with a lot of people and there was little chance of extremists coming to power. While we are going through something of an existential crisis at the moment that will inevitably pass, however this is not the first or the last time it will happen . With that, stability will inevitably return.

@@ryanm2279 I do not share your optimism, I believe any system that devolves into a two-party state is doomed to fail

@@wich1 What is your evidence for this? It must be remembered that there are other two party states in effect that don’t appear as such. From a European perspective it may be easy to think that the two US parties are similar to European parties when in effect they function as coalitions. The two party system is less than ideal, I agree, but remember there is nothing in the US system that mandates two parties. It’s an unfortunate result of our voting system which can be changed.

It also goes the other way. When no children or people walk city planners see no reason to make cities walkable.

@@Victor-tl4dk The other way can't happen on its own without.

@@rockingttalent3666 Exactly, it's a cycle.

@@Victor-tl4dk A Vicious Cycle, if you will. Car Dependancy promotes itself.

True, and it’s also a result of rural land prices and urban history. Most European cities were fully developed back when walking was the only practical way to move around, while most American urban centers were always built around the car. Also while a property developer in Denmark would have to spend a significant amount of their initial investment buying up small plots of farmland, massive swathes of mostly unused plains could be easily purchased by an American developer, making the American urban sprawl of houses cheaper than a modern European apartment complex. And this is just the economic side of it too. When it comes to culture, “the American dream” is still commonplace here. Renting apartments is viewed as (at best) a temporary solution until you have decided where you want to live and work your career, where you will buy a suburban house for your family alone. In Europe, renting or leasing a city apartment for years at a time is normal, or even a practical necessity (given small road networks and high car/gas taxes) if you want to work in a city. I’m certain that people on both sides view the other system as being either wasteful or depressing, but I know their are also those who would life like the other side, if given the choice. It’s just the result of geography, economy, and culture.

I also feel like less child freedom is more of an issue today then it was back then where everyone wasn't nearly as paranoid.

I’m at that age now and I live in a rural small town in KY. Before I got my license, walking was impossible unless you were in downtown, the rest is just roads and more roads. I always have to drive to go anywhere here. I guess it just depends on if you get lucky on what small town you live in lol.

I think it’s because US cities are impoverished crime ridden shit holes. I wouldn’t trust my kids to be alone in those places.

@@Kaiserboo1871 dawg you obviously don’t live in the states, everyone can tell from this comment. but by all means, take your kids to russia, oooh maybe north korea

@@Brotherjohn56 I live in the states, and most US cities are crime ridden shit holes. Especially now thanks to woke DA’s refusing to enforce the law and instead opt to legalize crime.

yea, but then again it can be a problem in some parts of europe too, namely italy i grew up in paris, and went to an italian school i could basically do as i wanted, just had to tell my parents where i was, but could go pretty much anywhere in the city on my own if that's what i wanted most of my friends, on the other hand, didnt had that possibilty, and where closely watched by the cliché but sort of truth "overprotective italian mother" to this day (i'm 19) some of my friends can't really do much without their parents being either there, or close by for example my best friend went to university in the netherlands, his ENTIRE family followed him (grandma who speaks neither english or dutch included), while i went to canada on my own instead

@@Orcahhh Well that's more a social problem. In Italy if your parents let you a teen or even a child can walk through the whole city and take public transport easily. In the US you usually HAVE to be driven by car.

That's why college experience in US are celebrated

It should just be common sense that children after the age of 7 dont need adult supervision.

@@vokasimid5330 While in Europe it is not, for do to more work you have less freedom than in school.

Its not as bad as youtubers say it is. trust me. I live in Canada. On side of the city is old, and has human centered urban planning. The other side where my friends live, is newer and more suburb styled. Its litterally not that bad. Bus system here is good, and compensates perfectly. Americans and Canadians love nature and wilderness. If you force people to live without a good backyard, and the ability to have a garden or grow trees, or mow their lawn, not everyone gonna like it. Theres a reason why American billionaires have ranches and hundreds of acres of land, while European billionaires just have a mansion

@@treyshaffer 'more developed' bullshit. Learned different lessons and in different ways, yes. Would you say kids in Nigeria are hyperdeveloped because of all the hardships and life lessons they had to learn early in life? Your comment comes off as Eurocentric and incredibly naieve, and I'm not even American.

@@treyshaffer I dont think its fair to say mentally developed. I think its better to say their more matured yk. But in my opinion, its not as bad as some people make it out to be. Some parents still let go alot, and let their kids have real life experiences. Its mostly the suburb kids that end up without it.

In the USA, there is a Minimum Number of Parking Spaces per Building. In Europe, There's a Maximum Number of Parking Spaces per building.

@@honkhonk8009 So, in Nigeria, the Average 16 Years old is Maturer than the Average Western 17 Year old due to their Different levels of Childhood hardships?

Finally, a European who actually understands.

Hi Daniel Have you considered this issue in terms of the countries culture's shadows (in the Jungian sense)? The frontier model you allude to seems to me to be a useful myth- based on the idea that there was basically nothing there when the settlers arrived. Recently it occured to me that the USA and Canada are built on violence - the violence that the settlers carried out on the people that were already there and the landscape and their natural resources. This includes the violence of slavery and the consequential racism. Many of the people that left Europe for Canada and the USA did not do so by choice ( for example Jews fleeing Europe before and during World War 2) and consequently arrived traumatised. Perhaps this is why America has a fear based culture and fear based foreign policies. You can achieve a lot in terms of making money and accumulating property when your motivation is trying to avoid the hell your ancestors experioenced. I live in Europe and feel an ancient connection to the land. This connection is grounding and nurturing. It seems to me that the same ancient connection is only available to the native /aboriginal / first nation people in North America. I apologise in advance if this is a half baked over simplified version of an existing well founded academic argument. I'm not an academic. I drive a delivery van and practice yoga and meditation. I'm not anti American. I came to this perspective through trying to understand certain perspectives presented by North American Jewish Budhist teachers. Try this as a litmus test - how does your frontier model explain the seemingly endless number of school shootings? Is it a product of fierce independence?

@@richardhall5489 Well my point wasn't so much that it was a frontier but rather that it was seen as a frontier in the eyes of many of the people choosing to go there. IT isn't intended as some sort of grand overarching explanation for every element of a culture but rather a potential root for a very specific element of the culture that I think is often overlooked.

@@richardhall5489 Any narrative attempting to explain the entirety of a culture is almost certainly laughably oversimplified at best

@@richardhall5489 Although I certainly agree that North America was settled/conquered/however we are referring to it in an extremely violent way and that that is certainly a common narrative of events likely because it is largely true but I'm also not entirely sure that there are many areas of human habitation in the world that one group of people didn't come in and do much the same if you go far enough back. Admittedly much of that is far further back in history and I suppose could very well be argued would therefore have far less impact on the modern culture than these examples. As far as connection to land goes that is an interesting point though I'm a little unclear exactly why we are making the assumption that a person's ability to feel attached to the land of their birth is in some way intrinsically tied to historical events that none of the people in question in the Americas or Europe ever experienced. I suppose I can see a cultural element to the point to an extent but it seems a little bit of a stretch to me.

For now they're different, but they're growing closer to each other. The EU is very busy federalizing. The EU is getting it's own Border Patrol and we're slowly heading into an EU wide minimum wage. Monetary policy is also getting standardized which is going to hollow out the Nordic models. Healthcare is still a state thing here, but this was also the case in America before Obama. COVID has proven the European healthcare system doesn't work. No cooperation, insufficient coordination and essentially no proper healthcare for treatment outside state. Just like housing. There's an EU wide housing program and that's all about making housing unaffordable while Biden has done everything to prevent evictions.

@@hendrikdependrik1891 home ownership is vastly different, especially in some countries easyli reaching 70%

That Europe tax billionaires more is a FALSE statement. I live in Sweden we do not tax wealth and we do not have any estate tax. Do not know much about other countries tax systems but since EU countries do "compete" with each other i asume it is more or less the same over the continent. The reason the USA only can agree on tax breaks and sanstions is because of the 2 (One) party system captured by corporations. Europe consists of multi party states where capital does not select the political winners but to a greater degree is decided by the people.

I don't agree that there's NO value in learning from Europe, but...the reality is, most things that "work" in Europe will not and cannot work in the United States. Kraut had an EXCELLENT video about why universal healthcare is probably never going to happen in the USA for this very reason. Or, how different in cultural psychology, political structure, and geography make certain policy proposals unfeasible.

Funny how the US assisted countries in Europe after WWII in so many ways, like how to adopt policies, politics and economy as taught in the US. Europe (at least the "Western" part) has then "mastered it" while USA totally went off its own course...

As a non american (usa) I am tired of all the vids that kinda boil down to "WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WRONG" I already know all that is bad with america, NOW I want all that is good about it

@@tomasavendanozacarias5205 sadly there isn't that much good about it that is why America is in constant crisis. Like you can find good thing in stuffs like travel vlog or food channels. But good in terms of government policies? Not really

@@tomasavendanozacarias5205 There is plenty that is great about America, along with its struggles, just as anywhere else. Stay away from the politicians and the self flaggelating, and you will find many great things. The individualism, dynamism, scenery/nature, and diversity would be a start :).

@@USERZ123XD america is in constant chaos because Americans LOVE they’re own chaos. Americans weirdly want to see the downfall of America you can see this in all those American films dating back to the 90s about some villain, natural disaster, alien threat, government attack wiping out cities and crippling the country. People talk about how America is on its last legs or about to collapse but Americans especially, have been saying this since the 60s maybe onwards. Maybe it’s a certain pessimism or boredom that comes with being the biggest superpower and it’s all been emphasized with social media.

@@2.5chainz Americans don't want chaos, they are weirdly obsessed because they are subjected to constant misinformation campaigns, the problem with America isn't censorship, it's information overload, instead of having censorship through blocking stuff, the United States does it through barrages of mis info that real information gets muddled with tons and tons of miss Infos.

Do you really believe the diversity within the States in on a level with the diversity within Europe? I won't claim there's no diversity at all, but through a common language, political discourse, media, history, nation building and car dependent infrastructure there seems to be a lot more similarity between US states than between EU countries.

@@Snowshowslow I didn’t say it was on the same level.

@@Snowshowslow I would honestly argue that America is almost more diverse than Europe. common language and a like for cars might be the only two things you have a point on and even then, most Americans who live in places like California, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida are very familiar with hearing several other languages other than English. Politics here are more fractured than Europe easily but is only masked by the two-party system. Media is so distrusted in the US most will simply listen to whatever news cast they think most aligns with them politically. Historically America has never been a nation of "togetherness" as many regions exist that dont even follow state lines. California is a perfect example of this as "NorCal" and "SoCal" despise each other despite sharing a state. not to mention the countless regions such as the deep south, great plains, new england, the great lakes, ohio valley, mid-atlantic, the Rockies etc. America is also more Ethnically diverse as most european groups such as the french, english, spanish etc have their own countries where as America is a state of migrants. Germany is close to 90% ethnic germans. America is about 60% white and those can be broken down further into ethnic groups such as germans, poles, irish, english etc. While some communities are not as close knit some such as the korean and hispanic communities are known to be.

@@r.t.hannah9575 No you didn't :) I was curious whether you thought so but the question may have sounded more confrontational than I meant it to be. If so, my apologies.

@@wafflesarebest1702 Interesting... I wonder whether it's just that we both see more diversity in what we know better. I will definitely grant you that Germany is less diverse than the US but I think the fair comparison would be whether Germany is more or less diverse than, say, Florida. I think you will find that the NorCal SoCal type divide exists within just about every country in Europe as well, and we have differences between farmland and mountainous areas and wetlands and cities too, but we also have different holidays, architecture, daily schedules (as in: when you eat, is there a continuous workday or a long midday break), different histories, currencies (apart from the Eurozone), customs etc. And I assume you know we don't exactly have the same media between Albania, Sweden, Czechia and Russia (for example). I know politics are a big dividing line in the US, but I always figured you cán at least watch what MSNBC says if you are a Fox viewer or vice versa. I would have no chance with Polish, Luxembourgish or Turkish TV. And of course you have different political leanings within a language area here too. But I don't suppose there's an objective way to settle this.

Excuse me, what the hell is work block? I'm one of these alleged "Europeans", I have no idea what it means haha

@@littlemissmello Huge thread necro but, a work block or off roll is just a way for high school seniors who are less than a full enrollment from graduating on time to work a job part time or participate in an extracurricular.

@@maxcohen4891 thanks! Does that mean that kids can just decide not to take their classes or whatever? If by their final year they haven't taken everything yet? How do you ensure all kids go to school and graduate?

As a European, I definitely see what you are talking about. It's really easier to trust your government when you see firsthand the action of the government, by Healthcare and social benefits. I would definitely not like to live in a country ran like the US ':)

Many countries in Europe don´t really like the government either,but yeah,its probably not so severe. It seems that one of problems is that US parties seem to support political rivarly against the opposite party to pretty high levels. European parties mostly try to propagate how much good they can do,US parties seem to mostly propagate how much bad have done the opposing party.

they won't admit it, but europe has a lot in common with russia, and that's not necessarily a bad thing

​@@noechiron889 When you have culturally homogoneous ethnostates, like in Europe, a lot of challenges drop away. Europe has also been wealthy for a long time (much of that wealth built on the back of colinizing Asia and Africa). The combination of high wealth, cultural uniformity, and ethnic homogenaity make the society very easy to run. It makes it easy to create systems with "high trust" that work well with little corruption. The US is a very diverse country with many different backgrounds that takes in many immigrants. It manages this challenge with a more robust decentralized model. For the challenges the US has, the level of centralization of Europe is infeasible. Europe throws a fit when it gets a tiny fraction of the immigration that the US has been getting for a long time.

They distrusts their government and most politicians, but worship their president. A recipe for disaster. Also, the USA probably also simply has more corrupt politicians. It is a plutocracy.

the US is still way more centralized than the blanket term of "europe"

@@user-ji4tj6ut2w True. But individual European countries are way more centralized than the United States. I get annoyed sometimes with lazy comparisons. The difference between Massachusetts and West Virginia in terms of economic output is as different as Norway and Greece. We would be better off I think comparing US States Vs. European countries. Many states are in fact larger than most of the countries of Europe. California has 40 million people. Texas has 33 Million.

@@swordarmstudios6052 very fair point, totally agree. glad we could find some common ground

Exactly, they don't spend 60% of the budget on "defense" Edit: obviously this is an overestimate, that being said look up federal budgets pre-covid and it isnt much off.

That's true only for germany and the nordic countries lmao

I can attest to you as an European that isn't true. The difference is that the US as one massive nation is full of beurocracy that is trying to convince you your taxes are being spent rightly, in a systemic fashion and then as one nation there is a division between where they should be spent in, military or schooling etc. whereas in Europe it's more straightforward and we don't enjoy as smaller nations the level of power and influence so we don't need to spend on military but rather infrastructure. Germany, or even my Croatia, or Russia or wherever, the sentiment that taxes are being misused or underutilized or stolen is very clear.

@@BrechPro The US is dependent on the petrodollar as the global exchange currency for oil etc. and the only way to keep it up is military intervention. Without it, the petrodollar would be coopted by the petroruble or petroyuan and you'd be going broke in a day. I am not saying what the US is doing is right, just that without it there are consequences, grave ones, to all Americans that Americans seem not to be aware of, it's not like the government will tell you "we are invading because our existence depends on the petrodollar." rather they'll tell you about spreading freedom etc.

@@BrechPro Yeah they get the Americans to do the hard work for them in that department