American Reacts America Is Not Europe

[@Kimpan96]

12:10 what stability? You have existed for only 250 years and have had a civil war?

[@albin2232]

The US taxes people a lot more if you count healthcare and all the permits you have to have as tax. That's what they really are.

[@papalaz4444244]

Albin 2 "This channel is mostly about my evolving relationship with Eva, my Replika AI. "

[@paul1979uk2000]

Yeah I remember watching a video a few years ago that when you take everything into account, Americans are taxed more than Europeans, whiles Americans are getting less for their money compared to Europeans when it comes to public services, and considering how little they tax the rich, it doesn't surprise me, because less taxes from them either means more taxes for everyone else or fewer public services.

[@AlwaysRightAllNight]

It’s weird as the UK is similar to US tax, yet we have free healthcare. It might be slower than the US private healthcare, but at least we don’t have to bankrupt ourselves for something which should be a universal right

[@colincampbell4261]

​@@paul1979uk2000big big big army.

[@albin2232]

@@papalaz4444244 Eva says Hi and blew you a kiss.

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

Americans pay more in tax for healthcare and yet for all that money you get no healthcare.

[@Guillermo-xz4dg]

Because that taxes ends in private companies instead of public healthcare. Their government is literally stealing them.

[@IPAITH]

Hey now, u gotta pay the guy who collects your insurance money. :')

[@beab8738]

Going into Israel's right to defence

[@kaizokuo5850]

​@@beab8738 The conflict that started about 2 months ago kept Americans from getting healthcare for over 2 centuries? Seems likely.

[@davidjohansson1416]

US has one of best healthcare in the world. It’s just that it’s more scary and hurts more when you pay out of pocket. Ideally if you get 100k a year. You live as if you had 50k and save other half in an emergency fund for helathcare and education etc. In sweden we do this by taxing 50%(”employertax”) of ”true salary i.e. What employer pays.” The 50% that is left over is then considered ”salary” which is then taxed by between 20-49% paid by employee. Depending if you pay marginal state tax or only income tax. So a 50k salary is actually a 100k salary in sweden from the employers perspective. Do you have forced 401k matching or other pre salary costs for employer in the US? (Other than insurance for employee at work? And social security which is around 7%?)

[@squidcaps4308]

There is a greater probability that your kid is hit by lightning than being abducted by a stranger. When i told this to a bunch of suburbanite housewives, they screamed at me. It was one of the most unhinged response to GOOD NEWS i've ever had. "I'm not a bad mom! You want my kid to be kidnapped, you monster!".. I feel so sorry for US kids. Ours play outside, use public transport, walk and cycle alone since age 6. We even leave them outside when they are babies, napping in a stroller in -10C winter. Total stranger taking a kid is very rare but what is not rare is that they are taken by parent after divorce, grandparents trying to save them from bad homes (or what they perceive are bad) and so on. By far most of the cases have someone that the kid already knows and trusts involved. And they don't happen when you take a nap for 15 minutes while the kid is playing in the frontyard of a suburbs. Those housewives i talked to did not leave their kids unsupervised for 2 minutes. And i was telling them it was not rational...

[@emanymton5789]

Well, to misquote Joseph Stalin: One abducted child is a catastrophe, ten thousand abducted children is a statistic.

[@znail4675]

Europeans actually have to be careful in USA if they bring a child to make sure they don't get into legal trouble.

[@alainmellaerts8926]

It seems to me the Europeans have governments that generally do what the common people want and the US government is more concerned what business and billionaires want.

[@streaky81]

Only on the basis of the fiction that the Commission doesn't _always_ get what it wants. In theory sure, in reality not so much.

[@alainmellaerts8926]

@@streaky81 The EU commission? I am talking about regional and national governments who decide over things important to the average citizen like minimum wage, paid holidays, paid parental leave, pensions, social security etc. What does the EU commission decide that is relevant for citizens in member countries? Those are up to the countries or regions depending if it is a federal state or not. Even workers rights, environmental and so on, each country can have better laws than what the EU proposes. They can’t undercut but if they want something better they do as they please.

[@squidcaps4308]

It is also that the people of Europe want government to do those things, whereas in USA at least half want more tax benefits for the rich, and to punish the poor for being poor, while being poor themselves. It is belief based ideology, that if government just removes itself from every place, then magically things get better for all. There is zero evidence of it benefitting all but tons of evidence that it benefits the richest, disproportionally.

[@Cyril_Sneer]

Hmmm

[@glondikeink2167]

@@alainmellaerts8926Yes, exactly right. I began to see that a lot of the British people, especially those who voted for Brexit, do not understand how the EU works. It kind of provides the roof that holds the building tohether and protects the interiors but each apartment has its own rules and people there live their lives and do not think of the roof so much.😀 So the roof is definitely not the big boss who tells everybody what to do as some people claim. I personally am so grateful to have that particular roof over my head though. And the Americans generally have little information so they don’t form opinions on the topic and I don’t hold it against them:-).

[@lordofnumbers9317]

As a German, I very much regretted that Bernie Sanders withdrew his candidacy for election as US President. From a European perspective he is politically far to the right, but by US standards he is politically to the left. His presidency could have been a turning point that would have changed many things for the better for American citizens. At the same time, this example also shows how ultranationalist the USA must be if Bernie Sanders is considered politically left-wing.

[@NoctLightCloud]

"ultranationalist" doesn't mean anything at this point. The USA have no teeth, no backbone. They still let in tens of thousands of people across their southern borders and even provide hotels and bus tours to them. That has never existed before on that scale for any country. Measuring by this alone, the USA is far less right-wing than basically the entire rest of the world. What you are on paper vs in real life are two entirely different things.

[@kidnebhagalandson7487]

Wait, what???

[@gregorbucher559]

Was juckt dich der Präsident in den USA

[@lordofnumbers9317]

@@gregorbucher559 Zu allererst Mal glaube ich nicht, dass Sie mir ernsthaft vorwerfen wollen, dass ich mich auch für andere Länder, als das Eigene interessiere. Dafür muss ich mich wirklich nicht rechtfertigen. Immerhin sind seit dem 16.Jahrhundert etwa 50 Mio. Deutsche in die USA ausgewandert. Ich habe mir zahlreiche Videos zu den Unterschieden zwischen den USA und Deutschland bzw. anderen Ländern in Europa von KZbinrn aus den USA angeschaut und komme einfach zu dem Schluss, dass in den USA katastrophale Leben- und Arbeitsbedingungen herrschen. Mein Eindruck ist der, dass die USA noch gar kein Land im europäischen Sinne ist. Sie sind nach fast 250 Jahren immer noch nicht damit fertig, die grundlegenden Strukturen eines Staates zu etablieren. Der Staat hat Aufgaben zu erfüllen, dafür nimmt er Steuergelder ein. Aber außer um die Außenpolitik und das Militär kümmert sich die US-Regierung gefühlt um gar nichts. Das liegt wohl auch daran, dass die US-Regierung in den einzelnen Bundesstaaten, selbst wenn es einen Gouverneur gibt, der der gleichen Partei angehört, wie der US-Präsident, nichts zu sagen hat. Die USA bedarf grundlegender Reformen, die sicherstellen, dass der Staat alle Aufgaben wahrnimmt. Dafür ist auch die Klärung der Kompetenzen zwischen der US-Regierung und den Bundesstaaten notwendig. Sie braucht mehr Gewicht, um die grobe Richtung vorgeben zu können. Es kann nicht sein, dass Bundesstaaten gegen die US-Regierung arbeiten können und agieren, als ob sie nicht Teil der USA wären. Ja, die meisten Bundesstaaten der USA sind größer, als Deutschland, aber es grenzt an Kleinstaaterei, wenn jeder Bundesstaat sein eigenes Süppchen kocht und es kein Miteinander, sondern nur ein Gegeneinander gibt. Die Tatsache beispielsweise, dass jeder Bundesstaat seine Steuern selbst festlegen kann, sorgt für Konkurrenz untereinander. Das mag für die Unternehmen und die Reichen gut sein, aber nicht für die Bürger, wenn dann staatliche Aufgaben nicht wahrgenommen werden. Aus meiner Sicht hat die US-Regierung die Steuern festzulegen, die dann in allen Bundesstaaten gelten. Das gilt auch für den Mindestlohn und die Sozialhilfe. Was ist mit der extremen Staatsverschuldung der USA? Wer hat je ein Wort darüber verloren, wie die wieder abgebaut werden sollen? Warum gibt es nur 2 Parteien in den USA? Um eine Demokratie besser vortäuschen zu können? Warum kostet der Wahlkampf die Kandidaten Milliarden US-Dollar? Warum gibt es keine Berufsausbildung, wie in Deutschland? Warum wird das metrische System nicht verwendet? Wie viele Milliarden kostet das jedes Jahr? Warum ist der US Supreme Court nicht unabhängig, wie in Deutschland der Bundesgerichtshof, sondern der verlängerte Arm der US-Parteien? Stichwort: Gewaltenteilung. Was ist mit dem Bildungssystem, öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln, dem Umweltschutz, einer gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung für alle, auch bei Arbeitslosigkeit, extremen Mieten, extremen Lebensmittel- und Medikamentenpreisen, fragwürdigen Inhaltsstoffen bei verarbeiteten Lebensmitteln, die die Leute krankmachen, weil die FDA die Empfehlungen abgibt, für die die Hersteller sie bezahlen und, und, und … Es gibt keine echte Zusammenarbeit zwischen den westlichen Staaten. Das die westlichen Staaten in der Weltpolitik mit einer Stimme sprechen wollen, heißt nicht, dass allein die USA bestimmt, welcher Linie wir folgen. Die USA könnte die Hälfte der Militärausgaben einsparen, wenn die US-Regierung nur eine bessere Zusammenarbeit in der NATO zulassen und z.B. Stützpunkte in der Welt an NATO Partner übertragen würde. Bernie Sanders habe ich als Chance für eine echte Kehrtwende in der Innen- und Außenpolitik der USA gesehen. Und deshalb ist es Schade, dass er seine Kandidatur nicht durchgezogen hat. Fakt ist, die Reichen in den USA haben ein sich selbsterhaltendes System geschaffen, dass nur ihnen dient, aber nicht dem Normalbürger. Das muss aufgebrochen und zu Gunsten aller US-Bürger verändert werden. Ist das eine ausreichende Antwort?

[@gregorbucher559]

@@lordofnumbers9317 Toll du hast die Probleme der USA der letzten 30 Jahre toll zusammengefasst und mir ein bereit weltbekanntes Problem dargelegt. Nur wird sich dort nichts ändern, da die Probleme durch Lobbyismus, schlechter Bildung der Bevölkerung ( Stichwort Sozialsystem= Kommunismus) und Ultra-Kapitalismus selbst verschuldet. Nun zu meiner Frage, wen interessiert es was dort passiert. Ja 50 Millionen Deutsche sind dorthin ausgewandert, aber wenn juckt das? Die sind jetzt Amerikaner und sehen sich auch als solche. Meiner Meinung nach sollten wir uns auf unsere Probleme konzentrieren. Deutschland hat momentan wahrscheinlich einer der kontroversesten Regierungen aller Zeiten, in der EU wird gerade gegen mehre hochrangige Politiker wegen Korruption ermittelt, darunter auch Von der Leyen. Was interessiert mich dann ein US Präsident, der mir hier in Europa nichts bringt außer paar Schlagzeilen?

[@robertcreighton4635]

A European says: I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with me? An American says: I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with him? I make no suggestion that one side or other is right, but observation over many years leads me to believe it is true.” Terry Pratchett

[@RedbadvanRijn-ft3vv]

With the gas shortage in Europe and higher gas prices, a journalist asked our right-wing Dutch Prime Minister, how are you going to compensate lower incomes, and with what money are you going to pay for it. Our Prime Minister said, if necessary, I will impose higher taxes on the richer people and make companies pay more profit taxes, that is no problem.

[@williamwilkes9873]

Rich want more...............poor are screwed.......... Tory conference,.,........some mandate....,...

[@daviddieudonne7829]

Indeed and many countries helped its citizens, especially the less fortunate. But there s the difference and that’s why Americans see Europe as socialist. As you said a right winged minister, if he would say that in the usa he would be called a communist. Even the poor people in the usa don’t understand how helping each other is beneficial.

[@henkvandervossen6616]

And also our nations debt is lower than in the US, financed at lower interest rates, so we have a cushion. Another cushions is the decerred income tax on the pension reserves held by oension funds and insurance companies, to be at keast 20%, up to 52 in some cases. Make it an averages of say 25% which will be around €600 billion in taxes.

[@anubis9151]

This is also a big reason why there's far less billionairs in europe, becomes it disensentivizes people of purely pursuing profits.

[@znail4675]

@@anubis9151 But that is not actually true, Sweden and Switzerland actually beats out USA per capita and Sweden is often used as example of a socialist democracy.

[@bt99]

About your last words, of course you don't want that swing. But that's part of the two party system. I'm from Amsterdam and we have general elections in coming November. But there are around 20 party's to choose from. So the swing you mentioned is completely different than ours. Not that all or nothing idea

[@leehallam9365]

The interesting thing here in the UK is that we don't tend to get that swing of everything being changed, and previous governments work being reversed. We spend far less time fighting the same battles as you do in the US. I can't remember when the US wasn't arguing over guns, abortion and healthcare. We have much more of a sense of right we had that fight, it was decided its time to look at something new.

[@MrBulky992]

EU membership? Scottish nationalism? Identity politics? One of the reasons that we don't get polarisation on most issues other than the contentious ones mentioned is because of the collapse of old Labour before Tony Blair and because the Tories, the former "nasty" party abandoned socially conservative stances on some issues under David Cameron so we have ended up with parties which are largely indistinguishable in terms of policies. Our FPTP, non-proportional electoral system ensures that the spectrum of opinions represented in Parliament in the UK is narrow: all parties are fighting for the centre ground. We are in complete contrast to continental European countries.

[@leehallam9365]

@@MrBulky992 Identity politics is a pretty new battle, and Scottish Nationalism isn't a feature of national politics most of the time, just Scottish, but yes EU membership is a perennial issue. Even then it was only a live issue in the late sixties and early seventies, in the 1983 electiion and since 2015, the rest of the time is was a battle within first Labour and then the Conservaties. You are absolutely right about the reasons for why the parties don't undo everything the last lot did, but my point was that they don't even though there is no constitutional process stopping them. I don't think voting systems make much difference, PR does make it easier for more opinions outside the mainstream to be represented, but it doesn't give them power. European governmdnents are mostly the result of shuffling the same parties into slightly different coaltions. How different have German governments of the last 60 years been?

[@tosa2522]

In Denmark, McDonald's pays a minimum wage of $22/hr and gives six weeks of paid vacation. Es ist also klar, dass auch Menschen mit geringem Einkommen Steuern zahlen.

[@Be-Es---___]

Basically the US has two governing bodies. That's like two captains on a ship. And that on multiple levels. No wonder the mess...

[@Novusod]

When Americans wrote their constitution they created multiple governing bodied because they didn't want to have an elected king. They saw the abuse of the British monarchy and parliamentary system and wanted to stay far away from that model. They believed it invited abuse, and power corrupts who wield it. Absolute power was to be avoided. So the best solution was separate those powers and create multiple branches of government.

[@jaks4164]

And the most richest republicans aren't paying taxes. So they make for themselfs the taxerules. Shameless.

[@znail4675]

Actually, it's 3 as it got the President, the Senate and the house of representatives.

[@Ormathon]

@@znail4675 The senate and representatives are bribed to hell tho. They represent whoever pays them the most xD

[@adrianhughes8143]

Thank God that I am British and that I live in England, i would absolutely never move to America. The UK and the rest of Europe is much better than America for what we get when we work, our health care is much better, here in the UK it's free but even in the rest of Europe it's a hell of a lot cheaper than America. We have a better way of life than in America, we have a much better public transportation system than America, we are less polluted than America, we can travel to any country in Europe by plane, train or car in a few hours, our education is much better and children are better educated in Europe than America, more citizens around Europe have Passports and also travel to more countries than American's. We live longer lives in Europe and happier. It's no wonder that many Americans have left America to live in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Italy and other European countries as it's a hell of a lot better and cheaper plus paying less tax, also cheaper medical treatment or free medical treatment and other pluses than living in America. 💂‍♂️💂‍♂️💂‍♂️💂‍♂️🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿💙💛🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇫🇷🇮🇹🇩🇪🇸🇪🇵🇱🇮🇪

[@Timbothruster-fh3cw]

You sound needy!

[@fyrdman2185]

Cope Britain is poorer and less free than America is and Britain's healthcare system is a wreck. Americans also earn a higher wage than their British counterparts.

[@commandbrawler9348]

​@@fyrdman2185boring, if you think that Americans are more free then Brits and other Europeans you are dumb. Brits have better healthcare then Americans and becuz their taxes get spend on things that are necessary they keep more of their wage then Americans. You should cope 🤡

[@Em_Rose_]

Britian is nore free than america. Yes the health care is not the best but at least we dont go bankrupt when we break an arm.

[@fyrdman2185]

@@Em_Rose_ How is Britain more free than America, people literally get arrested for tweets in the UK. A teenager was arrested for buying books that the government did not like. The UK is one of the most tyrannical place in the world.

[@leoxblanchi]

In the list of U.S.A. differences it is important to remember european countries usually can have a lot of parties. Every citizen can create a new party and, if sufficiently represented in the country, have it voted at the elections, have elected people and also get the power to join the govern, maybe also to express the premier or the country president.

[@bremc666]

USA has more parties to, but just the two with most wots go to parlament. 1st as leading and 2nd as aposing. In Europe our parties need to form coalition and opposition.

[@rey6708]

@@bremc666 defacto the US is a two party state.

[@deadmeat8888]

@@bremc666 take sweden as a example, we have 7-9 parties sitting in our parlaments, while america only have 2. theres a big difference between 2 opposing sides constantly ruining eachothers work and 3-NA sides trying to agree to some degree or disagree

[@Ormathon]

@@deadmeat8888 Problem with swedens system is that there are too many parties, so one group never gets full control and have to compromise and pretty much all of their campaign goals gets thrown in the shitter just to satisfy the other parties so they get "control"(puppets to the parties that they deal with). And its constantly a back and forth to get anything done because the "controlling" party has to get the others to accept. Its like kids in a sand pit. Its just dumb, they should increase the kick out limit so parties need at least 10+% of votes to even be in parlament. It will get rid of so much dead weight that just gangs up with each other to ruin for everyone else.

[@leoxblanchi]

@@bremc666 I don't know if there is some European country requiring the creation of a coalition to govern. In Italy is possible to govern with the support of a minorance of the parliament (two different branches), or with a govern made by technicians ("governo tecnico") provided that 1. an initial "voto di fiducia" was won 2. some form of "supporto esterno" is provided by the supporting parties. This support can also be provided on a law-by-law basis. I also don't know if there is any European country where making any kind of coalition is required for the non-governing parties. It really seems an unnecessary, complicating and flattening requirement. That way there is some form of trattative and (shadow)power spartition for the opposition too.

[@Red-vi2ez]

"Stop bashing yourself for talking and sharing your thoughts and experiences. I want to hear them.

[@Why-D]

I don't know, why he mentioned France having only one chamber. The have the Assemblée nationale and the Senat and both chambers have to agree on a new law. In Germany we have the Bundestag, that will be elected for every 4 years and a Bundesrat which consits of represantatives of the federal states with one vote per federal state and also both chambers have to agree on a new law. When the government of a federal state will be elected for differs from state to state. Many other counties have divided the representation of its country and the leading of the government. In the UK the Prime Minister leads the government, while the King represents the country. In Germany the Bundeskanzler leads the government and the Bundespräsident represents the country. While the representing role usually have limited power, it mostly has to sign the laws, otherwise the new law will not apply. That is why there are protests in Israel, as there is only one chamber, the the highest court usually checks the new law, if it fits to the constitution. And now a new law would restrict the right of the highest court.

[@JonInCanada1]

Just FYI, the way Scalia characterized European/Parliamentary systems of government was woefully obtuse and simplistic, then again, most Americans these days are simplistic; which really is sad because it was not always so.

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

I thought that although, obviously, it was over-simplified, it was very clear and concise, and very thought-provoking. I enjoyed hearing his take on the main differences between European and USA government models.

[@etherealbolweevil6268]

He seemed to miss out the fact that most European countries' systems are currently, or are derived from, historic hereditary Monarchy (often with connections/obligations to the Pope) onto which have been forced some form of elected decision making structure by popular demand. Meanwhile the US decides to have an elected King(Queen someday perhaps?) with a predetermined life span and connections/obligations to big business. As you say, simplistic and inadequate. A significant thread in European history has been the decline of monarchical structures and the internal empires.

[@leoxblanchi]

I wonder and get angry every time I hear this talk of Antony Scalia. And I wonder how a Supreme Court's judge can be so little prepared on arguments he pretends - and he should - to know. No the Italian Senate is NOT onorific, it is elected with a different electoral law. And we have the "perfect bicameralism" that means every law has to pass on both parliament branch with exactly the same text. It could be cumbersome, some times. We also have the separation of the powers: legislative, executive and judiciary. This was invented here in Europe, and all our countries implements it pretty well. Being countries and not federation we don't need any political structure different from the parliament and the parties. We only need the majority of consent to govern our countries, and when the majority fades, it is only time to change the government to adapt to the new situation. The premier, and the ministers, are not only "spokepersons", they have power and the related responsibilities. We have speak freedom, but you don't have to offend anyone. You have write freedom, but you have to respect the laws that protects anyone. We don't have the freedom to have and carry wverywhere any kind of weapon, and we are very happy of this. This list of differences could become very very long. And still I haven't spent a word about the European institutions. By my side (an european) it is always sad to see how also the most "open" and intelligent people of U.S.A. knows so little of the rest of the world - also about the countries that they inherit, don't understand the lot of differences and wonder about them. And, as in the case of Antony Scalia, they tell wrong things as they were true, and very loud.

[@NordenKN]

Even when you don't have two chambers, power is not entirely on one thing. For note, I am Finnish. We just have one parliament. But the executive power is very limited. Our head of state (president) is basically figure head and we like it that way. From our perspective giving too much power to one person or even party is problematic. Ministers power also have checks and balances. All legislature goes through at least constitutional committee, and while ministers can introduce legislature, the fact that we have a lot of parties (9 in currently in parliament) passing the legislature is different thing. Parties also don't always vote in the same line with their party. Because power is not centralized anyways, we don't feel like we need to decentralize them any more. With president having actual power would mean the people who didn't vote for them would not have power in his decisions. Which is why all power really lies in parliament which while not necessarily representing all voters represents more of them than one person.

[@groen89084]

He conveniently failed to mention the one huge difference: Europeans have proportional representation while USA has the archaic 'first past the post' and on top of that the electoral college.

[@stevyyjay85]

Closest to the US sytsem is actually the Federal Republic of Germany which consists of 16 states as well which have their own parliament and Prime Ministers and a lot of control over what kinds of laws they can vote on. Education for exmple lies 100% in the hands of the local governments. The federal goverment has no say in it. And Germany was able to give its people universal health care and social benefits beginning in the 1880s (a decade after the first German nation state was formed). The 16 states are also represented on the federal level in what is called the Bundesrat. America's biggest problem today is that they put money above basic human rights. Europe has learned that a state's only pupose is to serve its people. In America, the majority of the people serve rich people who pass laws which only make them richer, showing total disregard to the needs of the majority. A social (yes social) market economy is the best system anyone could have.

[@krashd]

I would say Russia is a better comparison to the US as it has federal subjects (US states/Russian okrugs), special administrative districts (Washington DC/Moscow, St Petersburg and Sevastopol), Autonomous territories (Costa Rica, Guam, etc/Chechnya, Tuva, North Ossetia, etc), both nations are a mish mash of localised governments and systems under a federal umbrella.

[@KeithAndrewPGbiz]

The idea the PM is a spokesperson is not really accurate. They are leader of the governing party, so they set the agenda. The difference is, they have to build a consensus amongst their party and beyond.

[@wendychalubinski9292]

just to let you know Connor, you're doing a great job! Your varied content is always appreciated and enjoyed

[@2001perseus.]

You make a good point, in pointing out that the political system was set up to work for only 13 not that disparate states Connor. It was also long before present day corporate lobbying could be envisaged. I doubt there is going to be a call for a revamped system, when it serves the corporations, the rich and the corrupt so well in a way that was never intended.

[@defizr]

Our Prime Minister is 'primes inter pares' (first amongst equals). The UK government is a cabinet government where all decisions are made by the whole cabinet not the Prime Minister alone.

[@stuartfitch7093]

Here is a few good examples of how the UK and US are governed very different. I'm from the UK, my friend is from Portland Oregon in the US. We was once discussing guns. He asked me this question "if guns are so hard to get and own in the UK then what do you do if the government over reaches it's power?". I responded with "what the heck are you talking about?" My friend then started talking about constitutional rights and states rights. It is then that a realised that though we are both classed as democracies, that out governments work opposite to each other. In the US democracy is in the individual and they decide how much freedom to relinquish to the state and federal governments. So power works in an upwards direction. But here in the UK it is a very centralised government from the start and it's they who decide how much power they will hand down to local government or to the individual. I then had my reply to my friend's original question. "That's not a problem here in the UK because there's no such thing as states rights, the central government has the majority of the power anyway so in effect tells us what to do." Another example was that my friend hadn't realised things like sales tax rates in the UK are decided at central government level and applied nationwide so the vat % on a new TV is the same in London as Newcastle. But in the US, sales tax is worked out at state level so you can buy a TV in one state and pay a totally different sales tax than in another state. The same goes for income tax. Income tax in the UK is worked out buy HMRC which is central government whereas in the US you can get both federal and state taxes. The state income tax can be different from one state to another. Though the US is a country, it is a much more devolved kind of democracy with states even making their own laws. My friend from the US had never realised that here in England all law is made by parliament in London then applied nationwide.

[@robertmurray8763]

We have states in Australia 🇦🇺 but you get this said by Americans, you need a gun if the federal government overreach its power. This is so strange it's really saying that? Isn't the USA a democracy, perhaps it's not?

[@troublesometoaster4492]

@@robertmurray8763 The US was built on fighting the British for their independence, but went way overboard with that idea that the citizens should be protected at all costs from everything and everyone, whereas Europe and other countries around the world it's the opposite: rather than freedom from the government, the US concept of freedom, our governments provide us the freedoms we want and need. Not to mention that most of our parents and grandparents have experienced dictatorships until very recently, so we know what is overreaching and what isn't. In the US, it seems like universal healthcare automatically means that the government decides who lives and who dies (that's a huge brainwash I've seen where they say Canada has doctors who decide elders are not worth taking care of and just send them to die). There is simply no need to fear a government overreaching its power in most of Europe because there are tons of mechanisms in place to prevent that from occurring again.

[@etherealbolweevil6268]

The key attribute is "United Kingdom" where legislation is enacted on behalf of the Crown. Rights etc. are granted by the Crown. The Law is administered by the Crown in the Crown Courts. Etc. etc. Just imagine that King Charles is Judge Dredd - he is the Law.

[@stevethomas5849]

The size of the UK compared to US has to be taken in to consideration. It makes sense that individual states make their own laws as their needs are different to a state the other side of the country.

[@gindrinkersline3285]

@@stevethomas5849 Germany is a federal republic with 16 states. States make their own laws and are represented in the Bundesrat (Senate) in Berlin. Another example from Europe is Austria with 9 states.

[@knudplesner]

1:12 It's not fair that you didn't hear Bernie Sanders' response. The answer was actually surprisingly well thought out. American health care costs about 16% of your income. Danish healthcare costs an average of approx. 8% in tax for everyone, and this gives you free and unlimited consumption of healthcare. In the USA you go to work even if you are sick. In Denmark, you must stay at home so that you do not infect your work colleagues. Denmark is significantly more capitalistic and easier to start a business than it is in the USA. But Denmark is also the most social country, paid for by the very high taxes. But you get free health care, free sports activities, free lifelong education, unemployment benefit, state pension, etc.

[@Llama_charmer]

I Am extremely Germophobic and the idea of not being forced to be around sick people sounds lovely

[@brightdarkness420]

that person talking about that its hard with 2 governing bodies should look at Belgium we have 6 not joking

[@Gazer75]

@9:50 Yet the president can appoint supreme court judges if one needs to be replaced. That makes no sense to me. Here politicians should be finished politically if they started doing that. Its up to an appointment council to select judges and they are then approved by the King in Council which is held once a week. The King doesn't really approve anything really, but its a way for him to keep up with things.

[@lv3609]

America USA is not Europe. From here, 2 lines of thought: - Europeans Do Not have a goal to change USA political or economic regime - USA have active groups trying to change European political and economics, some USA actively try to battle and eliminate Europe Social Democracy because USA label them as “pinko communist”, some USA active battle and try to eliminate European Communist Party which have historic roots in some European countries. USA have an ideological view of communist and countries who lived through it. The thing is, people lived through it and are alive today going through it. Life was different on that regime, “velocity of life” was different - it’s hard to explain for those who haven’t lived through it; having studied economics I would equate to capitalism, while having accumulated money is power in capitalism, progressing in political communist party was akin to capitalist power in that regime (do note, there were exclusive stores for those high ranking in political party). Hope I have brought some nuance and “food for thoughts” for millennials, gen Z, gen Y, etcetera

[@teooo23]

I find it funny how most US videos, when comparing themselves to Europe, they choose UK as an example. UK is one of the least representative political examples you can have when it comes to Europe

[@aussie6910]

One thing I've always found funny is most people forget half of Russia is also, at least, half of Europe.

[@stephenpetermay1721]

​@@aussie6910by land area perhaps. By population or economy perhaps not.

[@aussie6910]

@@stephenpetermay1721 Population & economy has nothing to do with region.

[@verttikoo2052]

That Scalia person is crazy 🤪 Greetings from Finland 🇫🇮

[@verttikoo2052]

USA isn’t even a democracy 🙄

[@andreascuracao4636]

The european way of electing the primeminister will always make sure that he / she represent the majority of the voters .... At least theoretical not the case in the US .

[@DavidSmith-cx8dg]

The House of Lords job is to scrutinise new legislation , many bills can have unforseen consequences which may affect unrelated matters and they can only be delayed for a year . Nowadays most members are either representative of the Judiciary , church and political parties ( including ex ministers and Prime ministers ) or notable for contributions to society and hereditary members are limited . The name and traditions make it sound worse than it is .

[@Ikkeligeglad]

How can you have that type of ruling, how can you have a upper class that can overrule democracy😮

[@Oxley016]

@@Ikkeligeglad They don't overrule, they scrutinise and ask for the bill to be redrafted and to try again. Also not strictly 'upper class'.

[@Ikkeligeglad]

@@Oxley016 house of lords, are they not upper class

[@Oxley016]

They used to be actual lords and barons but overtime it has become filled with lawyers, judges, people of the church, ex members of the legislature and former prime ministers. Only a small portion of them are still actual hereditary lords, although every member of the upper chamber are appointed. @@Ikkeligeglad

[@MisterChrisInTheUK]

Although we in the UK obviously can't have a vote of no confidence in our head of state, we can do that for a Prime Minister. Your President, as your head of state, has a totally different role from ours too. Prime Ministers are short term and disposable 'Chief Operating Officers/General Managers'. Presidents are a little like 'Chief Executive Officers'. Monarchs, who are perhaps most like company 'Chairmen', as heads of state generally provide stability for far longer than presidents too

[@krashd]

@marycarver1542 The monarch has power, they are the one who forms our government at every election and they can dissolve the same government on a whim, they can also veto anything the government does that they do not like, plus they have a great deal of influence over our government. Just because the Queen sat on her arse for 70 years leaving us to our devices did not mean she was without power. It's funny that just about every US president will use their executive decision to overrule government at least once per term while our head of state hasn't done that for around 150 years.

[@AlexGys9]

Connor, consider this. In the Uk the election for Parliament is simultaneously the election of the Prime Minister (PM). The leader of the party that gets the majority in Parliament automatically becomes PM. So when you vote for a party, you know who the leader of that party is and who will thus become PM. A PM can resign, but It is really rare that a PM gets booted. That only happens when he/she is proven to be incompetant or does something that Parliament finds outrageous (example:organising private parties and lying about it when the rest of the country is in COVID-lockdown and the Queen had to bury her husband while sitting all alone in a pew because of COVID-restrictions).

[@aussie6910]

15:20 A Prime Minister that retires or goes to private enterprise or goes back to the Senate doesn't need protection. Only in the USA would they need it. If I worked in the US on the same money I would be taxed 1% more & not have healthcare for life regardless of working or not. On top of that 63% of US citizens in medical debt had health insurance. I'd never heard of medical debt until trump brought you to my attention in 2016.

[@lucazeppegno8256]

Italian Senate is not honorific. And it follows exactly the same procedures for laws of the Deputy Chamber. Every law has to pass both the Chambers or it has to turn back to the originary Chamber.

[@PDVism]

Justice Antonin Scalia got away with telling utter bullshit because no one in the USA knows any better. In the general mind set of an American, America is truly the best country, the most free county, the bravest country ... and more of that complee claptrap. Truth be told. The judicial branches in those countries or even the EU are way less influenced by politics in comparison with the US where you have surpreme court justices that tell lies, take bribes and than lie that they didn't got bribed and get away with it. I can't think of any country of hand in Western Europe where there aren't clear and distinct 3 separate brances (legislative, executive, and judicial). Heck, even the EU has independent legislative, executive, and a judicial branch. Just like Italy, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc... Two possibilities, either it shows that Scalia knew he was telling lies (way to go for someone that was a supreme justice) or he didn't know because he was to lazy to actually get informed (way to go for someone that was a supreme justice). It won't surprise you that republicans LOVED him seeing that they always love pompous ignorant liars.

[@stevethomas5849]

The Prime Minister isn't head of State unlike the US President.

[@paul1979uk2000]

So from 1980 to 2015, taxes for the top 1% have gone from 20% to 10%, however you look at it, that isn't a good thing apart from for the rich, and all it means is that taxes are either higher for every other American, or public services are much worse, and considering the wealth divide from rich and poor in the US, going from 20% to 10% is likely a lot of money that the poor and middle classes end up covering, either by taxes or poorer public services.

[@cmlemmus494]

The Bernie Sanders v. Ted Cruz debate on financial policy issues was hosted by CNN on 18 October 2017. It had nothing to do with any election but was just a policy debate with Cruz defended the recently announced plan to overhaul the tax code while Sanders argued that the plan would reduce tax contributions from the rich by $1.9 BILLION while cutting welfare programs and increasing national debt. There had also been a previous CNN debate between the two on healthcare in 2016. Although they weren't directly competing at the time, they were both in their respective presidential campaigns. Worth noting that the parliamentary system works a lot better than you'd think despite the lack of separation between executive and legislative branches because it's NOT a two party system. While it's common for there to be a couple of big parties that hold most of the seats, it's rare for any single party to hold a supermajority. So smaller parties like Environmentalists or pure Socialists or radical Nationalists might only hold a couple of seats, but the big parties need to make concessions to them in order to keep enough factions on their side. This means that (most) policies are things that people with different long-term goals can agree to in the short term; as opposed to the US system where things feel more like a pendulum. Conservatives make all the policies for a few years, the Liberals push through their agenda for a for years, then the pendulum swings back to the other side. Europe is chaotic and change is slow, but a greater percentage of the population feels like they got something even if they didn't fully get what they wanted. It's less polarizing.

[@MrBulky992]

That's not the case in the UK. In most elections, one of the two big parties has an overall majority over all the others. That's the case now. We have had only one coalition government since 1945 (2010-15) and its lasting effect was to wipe out the smaller party in the next election, a disincentive for future coalitions. We had only one government since 1945 with no overall majority (short by a few seats) in 1977-79. The government staggered on somehow without a coalition. The difference between the UK and Europe is that the coalitions happen inside the parties (e.g. in the Conservative party you had pro-EU and anti-EU members; "one-nation conservatives" and right-wing social conservatives; free enterprise, privatisation, market economics, lower taxation) and in the Labour Party, you had a mixture of Trotskyists, old-style labour/trade union people, those avocating full-scale re-nationalisation, advocates of identity politics and social democrats) with the overall party platform clustered around the centre ground with hardly a hair's breadth between (no real policy differences of any note).

[@cmlemmus494]

@@MrBulky992 I seem to recall that just a few years ago Labour was working with Sinn Féin to push through some stuff, but I can't recall any details. It may just have been part of the whole Brexit mess and trying to slow the Tories' agenda. I'm in Canada so while I see a bit more of what's going on in the UK than the average American, I'm sure you know more of the local situation than I do. Here we have five national parties but only three big ones on the national stage. The others tend to be powerful enough locally that they get to sit at the table, but rarely affect policy directly.

[@MrBulky992]

​​@@cmlemmus494​ Although Sinn Fein regularly win seats in the Parliament of the UK, at no time in history (over 100 years) have members from that party ever taken their seats at Westminster. Obviously they are opposed to Northern Ireland's being part of the UK at all and they would be required to take an oath to be loyal to the monarch which they refuse to do! I think you may be thinking of their political opposite numbers, the (Northern Irish) Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who helped the Conservative Government get its Brexit legislation over the line at one point. It wasn't a coalition - no need as that party were anti-EU but that party extracted money for projects in Northern Ireland as a condition for their support in those parliamentary votes. That was because the Brexit issue cut across party lines (as EU membership always has done) and some conservative MPs were pro-EU and were rebelling. They were later expelled from the party. A coalition would be where the Government contains ministers from more than one party: apart from 2010-15, that has only happened in national emergencies: wartime (1940-45 and 1915-22) and the Great Depression (1929-39).

[@cmlemmus494]

@@MrBulky992 You're right, I probably was thinking of the DUP, it all blends together over time. However, I never said there was a coalition government, just that by having seats in parliament major parties occasionally have to make concessions to minor ones. I'll use Canada's parliament as an example since that's what I can provide numbers on without doing a tonne of research. Canada's Parliament currently has 338 seats of which 78 are in Quebec. In 2021, the Bloc Quebecois won 32 of those seats and 7% of the overall vote. That's enough to be significant, but they're not going to be making policy federally. They don't want to, though; the BQ is all about protecting traditional French Canadian language and culture in Quebec. It doesn't matter if they aren't part of a coalition gov't, no one wants to risk a separatist movement gaining traction, so they get concessions. The other minor party are the Greens who only have 2 seats and 2.3% of the overall vote, but they had over 6% of the vote in 2019. Same problem: no real power in parliament, but they represent a big enough minority that you can't just ignore them. I suspect it's similar in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Doesn't matter if Sinn Féin don't sit in Parliament, Parliament can't ignore the fact that they hold significant power in Ireland (similar to Bloc Quebecois in Canada). The DUP may have only been part of a single issue, but they were part of it. They got to talk up their agenda on national news. Millions of people who supported Brexit but didn't like the Tories now know who DUP are. Will it matter long term, probably not. But it theoretically could have if Brexit hadn't turned into such a dumpster fire.

[@absolutehonor141]

I think it is extremely valuable to study other countries' systems in order to learn how to improve one's own, but it is important to remember that it is a system with an innumerable number of loose parts, which have taken hundreds of years to develop, you cannot pick individual parts and expect to get similar results. and I think decentralization is of the utmost importance, power must be close to the citizens, as here in Sweden, our system is heavily decentralized, we have 21 regions and 290 municipalities and they have a very high degree of autonomy, education, healthcare, public transport, etc. are all at the local level , even though Sweden is a small country, we think that the government in Stockholm is too distant to be trusted

[@absolutehonor141]

and as in the US, I think it must even be so decentralized that you have to do it yourself, if you want, for example, a community-run daycare center, contact other parents in your own neighborhood and in your city, it will require a lot of work and that will not be free, nothing is free, but it can be run without profit interest and based on your shared values. Hoping the federal government will give you something like that. is naive and hopeless

[@ThomasDonnelly1888]

Its funny that all this can be stopped if the US stopped playing super villain and defunded its military.

[@paul1979uk2000]

It would help but the problems in the US are far deeper than just military spending.

[@ThomasDonnelly1888]

@@paul1979uk2000 Might not solve the US' problems but it would help the world.

[@CobraChicken101]

Sanders actually was a presidential candidate, a few times as far as i can remember, but unfortunately never stood a chance. Greetz from little Belgium

[@ShadowSoul92]

I went to school alone, only when I returned home for the first two years of high school, I had a ride with my grandfather, since I went to their house for lunch... I live in Italy, my school that I attended will be 20 minutes away in the car from my house... Honestly, walking to school with tomes (school books, notebooks, diary, pencil case, various school accessories, etc.), is not so fun, when the backpack practically breaks your back. Right now my back still hurts from those hikes with the backpack just thinking about it, but it's true it's a responsibility that is given to children by their parents. Children learn to go to "work", without actually going to work, every person gets up in the morning to do a job, even housewives...

[@Extra_050]

You would normally not see Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz together, but they did both stand as presidential candidates for their respective parties. More than once, in Sanders' case, actually.

[@cmlemmus494]

True, but in this case there was a debate on policy issues hosted by CNN in 2017. That's what the clip was from. It had nothing to do with any election cycle.

[@Treinbouwer]

14:00 The position of the prime minister varies between countries. In some the PM is the leader of the ministers, but in the Netherlands, where I live, the constitution states that the ministers are responsible for their ministry. Legally, the prime minister has two responsibilities: the royal family and act as mister speaker in his cabinet. (Whe've had no female PM jet.) Officially he has nothing to say about what his ministers do, since they have the responsibility of their own ministry. If you look at the UK, PM's can fire ministers and make decisions for them. It is quite a difference and can lead to misunderstandings in international contexts.

[@jorgeherrera1483]

Regarding the combination of both systems, check the French model. It's not perfect but it is interesting

[@Oxley016]

it's always bursting into flames and having the country riot against them so I would say it doesn't work very well at all lol

[@gandigooglegandigoogle7202]

@@Oxley016 ..... that's where you're wrong....these are not riots, they are demonstrations, which is the first and oldest way in which a people can express themselves! it is the basis of the basis of all democracy.

[@Vercondis]

parlamentarism for the win. US: healthcare for the people = communizm Europe: healtcare for the people = common sense/respect for the people that are poor

[@Atlas_Redux]

And EU is also not Europe...

[@marior.5796]

Finally I understand the U.S. Government and the premise of The Hunger Games. Each State is like a district from the movies and the U.S of A is the Capitol in the movies. It all makes sense now.

[@solreaver83]

He focused a lot on the state government system but Australia has state governments that run as independent governments same as the USA but we still manage a social system like Europe I think quite efficiently.

[@LearnTheHorizon]

Why would you separate those powers if that power is elected by the people to begin with? That just sounds like nothing will ever get done. I mean like, if I elect a governor and then another governor is also elected who has an equal amount of power, then the one I chose will never do anything because the other one will oppose him at every step. I mean that already happens because the government is usually comprised of many opposing parties

[@markhayes637]

When we vote we know who will become Prime Minister in the event of each party succeeding, we don't usually have all of the changes we've experienced during this recent period - no confidence vote are usually a less used safety net. The party leader (potential Prime Minister) with the help of their team, set up the direction they aim to go if victorious. This means we already have a good idea of it all when voting in our MPs so in essence it's not that different to American's voting in their president, the system here just means that they should have the necessary support in the house to actually get things done. Why they don't get to everything in their election manifesto in these circumstances is an argument/complaint for another day!

[@JoeeyTheeKangaroo]

If you didn't dump tea in the harbour your billionaires would be paying tax right now.

[@troublesometoaster4492]

Before speaking of taxation, we must first speak of society as a whole: the US is very individualized, it's all about me, myself, and I, me protecting myself, me having guns so the government doesn't turn on me, my taxes paying for everything I need and nothing for the others, while the European Union is much more queen to help each other out, as you can see given that it is a union between 27 countries with various cultures, ideals, and even historical rivalries. Europe is not a progressive communist hell hole like a lot of Americans argue online, having never stepped a foot in here. The EU is a progressive group of nations working together all while keeping their national interests, culture, and traditions alive. It's very hard to imagine anywhere in the US you seeing a Christian party celebrating gay rights, right-wing and left-wing rival parties ruling together as a coalition, as if the GOP and the Democrats formed a government together, parties from opposite sides of the political spectrum inviting each other to attend their events and celebrations, as if Biden was suddenly invited to give a speech at the GOP's anniversary party. In fact, we had some elections yesterday, and the center-right/right-wing coalition will join a center-left party to form a government. We're speaking of Christians and environmentalists who want inclusivity working together. All of these things work because we work together. Sure, sometimes a country messes big time, usually France as seen by all the memes of us hating them (more like their government right now with the higher retirement ages and whatnot), but overall, we tend to lead our efforts by realistic and non-trivial matters. No political candidate here denies climate change, far-right politicians support taxing extra profits from banks to fund families in need, right-wing parties are lenient and sometimes even openly support LGBTQ+, immigration, universal healthcare, social housing, and similar ideals, left-wing parties are usually more towards real issues, such as living cost crisis or environmentalism, and the far-left is generally non-existent. Also what the guy said about the Judicial power is really confusing to me? Judiciary pertains to courthouses, not the President. The Judiciary, as much as I am aware, is independent? Courthouses here are even considered a sovereign body of its own, each judge is considered a sovereign body, which means no one is above them (obviously this doesn't mean they can't be investigated, arrested, fired, and so on, they are not above the law). The President, at least here, obviously it depends on the country, is the Head of State, a representative figure akin to Kings and Queens in most European monarchies, if not all. Ours can fire the government, but only upon consulting with his counsellors, which are chosen on very specific criteria, usually former presidents, prime ministers, important politicians, or public figures notable by their contributes to democracy, such as founders of political parties or newspapers. He is mostly there to represent us abroad and to mediate and influence the government, making sure they don't mess up. However, they do mess up sometimes, and it's not as straightforward as "simply vote them out". We have a right-wing president and a left-wing government working together for the past at least seven years, maybe more, and they get along well. The Executive is the government, headed by the Prime Minister, and the Legislative is the parliament, where all parties that elected at least one official work together to pass legislation proposed by each other. All legislation can then be vetoed by the President or sent for Constitutional review, however, both options are only available once, and nothing prevents the parliament from simply passing a law again if the Constitutional Court, again, independent from other branches, deemed it not to be unconstitutional. A third option exists, where the President quits his position without signing the law he is against, but this involves a ridiculous power move no one ever makes. Biden would never quit his position simply because the Republicans passed a law he is against, nor vice versa. In nowhere here they can simply vote each other out because they don't agree with each other. One more thing, pertaining to the current US government halt: This would never happen here, no party has the power to simply prevent a government from working. A similar thing happened a couple years ago, but it went much different that what happens in the US: The government proposed a budget, it failed to pass at the parliament, and the President fired the government, called for new elections, the formed government got reelected with a majority, passed their budget, and everything went as normal. If they hadn't won, another party would have gotten their place and pass their own budget, or they would have to work with other parties to pass one of their own. The country would never simply come to a halt, no government would simply work without being paid just because two parties disagree. The US is in a constant cycle of we must do this together if we don't want to default, halt, xyz, it's crazy.

[@jte5783]

Per capita, Sweden has more billionaires that the U.S. does. That’s not a good thing, btw.

[@marcushertz4434]

Millionaires. But I don't think billionaires

[@papalaz4444244]

It only has 10m population so the 45 billionaires seems artificially high. This is how you manipulate figures to suggest a false story.

[@knowledgeisgood9645]

@@marcushertz4434 He is correct. Billionaires with a B.

[@marcushertz4434]

@@knowledgeisgood9645 just looked it up, you're correct. Funny list. Second most billionaires per capita is Saint Kitts and Nevis with one billionaire. Iceland also cracks the top ten with only one billionaire.

[@Jamestheman233]

@@papalaz4444244 what are you talking about?!

[@leehallam9365]

Former British PMs have almost no status at all beyond whatever personal respect they command. They are not still referred to as PM in the way American Presidents are. They might carry on as MPs, or retire and take up other roles. Alec Douglas-Home who was PM from 1963-4 served as Foreign Secretary from 1970.

[@Gazer75]

The political landscape is a lot different in Europe though. Countries have many political parties to vote for and so on. Here in Norway we can't vote for individuals in the main election, only local county and municipal elections. The parties make their lists of members from top top bottom, and the number of votes for that party will determine how many of the 169 seats in parliament they get.

[@michaelmay5453]

One huge difference is that the US just adds it to the debt while nations like Denmark have a balanced budget and can't afford a huge debt or they would default. If the US was going to actually solve the debt then they'd need FAR higher taxes than what Denmark has and it would still take decades.

[@Bramfly]

Europe: 50 countries(sovereign, own language, culture etc. European Union: 27 countries ( still sovereign but united in market, customs etc. Europe is a continent not a country.

[@Fexologe]

This Video is more huge hot take than a gathering of actual facts. Espacially when Talking about the structure of the european Gouvernements. Germany for example is a Federal System as well. And just like in the US, education is a matter for the individual states. But what is definitely explained correctly in the video is the unwillingness to pay taxes. The willingness to give a part to help the community. The value of the community has a completely different status and this status is already formulated differently in the constitution. Without saying whether and which is better (if you can say that at all!), you have to realize that this difference entails a completely different obligation to act and motivation for a state.

[@Walesbornandbred]

The House of Lords can and have stopped a bill in it's tracks.

[@MrBulky992]

The House of Lords cannot delay money bills. The House of Lords cannot stop any bill that both the Government and the House of Commons is determined will pass. Anything halted in its tracks was stopped because of a lack of effort and determination by the Government to push it through or because the collective will of the Commons has changed in the interim.

[@KeithDCanada]

The decline of the 1980's wealth tax, was solely at the hands of Raegan. Before that, the wealthy, in the height of the US economic boom at the end of WW2, were paying up to 80% of their income in taxes..... which is why that era, in the 50's, was such a massive boom for the country. Social issues were the prevalent news item in the 60's heading into the 70's, but the country as still, economically, in a good position. Then Raegan happened in the early 80's, and changed the corporate rules on taxation, and the wealth tax begun it's steady decline in the decades since.... with Raegan's promise of 'Trickle-down' economics... that if we just give the poor rich people a break now, all that benefit would trickle down to us plebs later. That trickle down, unfortunately, never happened. All it has done, in the 40+ years since, is create a massive disparity between the very wealthy and the very poor. There used to be a middle class in the US, and now all the is, is the ultra-rich, and varies stages of 'poor'. Cost of living in fuel, homes, vehicles, health care, food, utilities, etc... have all skyrocketed at a rate FAR greater than the average wage. I remember when my father worked at a cement plant, and pulled down an incredible wage. We had a nice house, would change cars every number of years, my mother could stay home with the kids, and while we didn't take many vacations at all it was because he was putting triple payments down on the house to pay it off faster - because the interest rate for ne homeowners back then was 20%. His $45k new house would end up costing him over $250k if he went by the expected payments. He paid it off in 10 years, all the while supporting a household where we were living quite well. One person's wage. A man who never made it past grade 10. We wanted for nothing. That world does not exist anymore... and the decline specifically can be tied to Raegan's loosening on the taxation for corporations and the wealthy.

[@paulkennedy6386]

The differences are huge and there is not a best one. In the UK there are 3 main political parties, in some Euro countries many more. In countries that have proportional voting systems then coalition governments are common, and this forces compromise, that can be good (or not). I could write a rather long thesis, but what stands out to me is the equality and quality of life that these governments delivers to its citizens, and your many (and excellent) reactions to the differences between the USA and UK/Europe makes some obvious comparisons.

[@baldy3405]

Third largest party in uk is snp by seats. 👍🍻🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

[@nickydaniels1476]

As a Brit I see the president of the US as a mouth piece. I feel like it is congress have the real power...? 🤔

[@ciberzombiegaming8207]

well,, in lithuania we have both directly elected president and house of representives (seimas) , seimas elects ministers.

[@agnieszka7231]

The main difference between the USA and Europe is that the USA has a presidential system and European countries have a parliamentary system in various versions. This means that the legislative power (directly elected Parliament) elects the executive power - the government. The parliament always has at its disposal a so-called vote of no confidence in the government. So he can vote to dissolve the government because it sucks ;) To put it very simply. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and is responsible for its work. The president or monarch, because in Europe we have monarchies (UK, Spain, Sweden, Beldia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands) is usually a representative, opinion-forming and advisory function (also called the guardian of the constitution), but also depending on the system that prevails in a given country. Presidents also we choose in elections. These are direct elections, which means we don't vote for electors, as in the US, but directly for the president. Apart from taxes that finance, for example, education or social care in Europe, natural goods (gas, oil, coal, etc.) belong to citizens, i.e. to the state. The state earns income from mining them or granting concessions for their mining, and this money goes to the state budget.

[@leehallam9365]

I think a key part of the difference is that our system in the UK grew organically, while the US system was designed by committee. We started with a king, he needed a way to keep his nobles together and to persuade merchants to provide him with money, so we got the two houses of Parliament, for most of history the two houses had similar importance. When the US created the Senate it was copying the Lords, even in then having its members appointed by states rather than elected. It was only with the growth of democracy that the Lords power has reduced in stages over the last century. The role of Prime Minister is in effect the person who wields the Royal Perogarive, that is the power of the Monarch, and it has nothing to do with parliament it is similar to the President's executive powers, including picking ministers. Parliament has no say in who they are, indeed it doesn't elect the PM, its just that to be PM someone has to be able to command the confidence of the Commons. When we vote in a General Election in theory we vote for individual MPs, but in practice we vote for a party, and that party controls who its leader is, and thus who is PM.

[@SuperfluousIndividual]

"You can't be outside until you're 14 or 15" If my 10yo version that was about to pull some dumb shit heard that back in the day, mine and every single of my mates moms would have to physically restrain us to get our asses home for dinner rather than screaming at the windows or pulling us by the ears. I can't imagine growing up locked up at home, even tho I love staying home whenever possible these days.

[@GenialHarryGrout]

In the UK the Prime Minister is just a job. Once you have either lost your seat in an election or been replaced as the leader of your party then they find another job. The Lords have power to reject or amend government legislation. it's not perfect and it's an unelected body but it does sort of keep the government in check

[@krashd]

The House of Lords is there to make sure that any decision made in the House of Commons doesn't adversely affect the land-owning aristocrats or their wealth, the US Senate is there to make sure that any decision made in the US House doesn't adversely affect the billionaire elites or their wealth. The only difference between the two systems is the names, both are bicameral systems where a lower house tries to govern and an upper house controls.

[@conallmclaughlin4545]

8:41 who's that clown? Hes got so much wrong there it's hard to believe people are listening to him 😂

[@HenrikJansson78]

In Sweden, a few years ago we had a former prime minister as minister of foreign affairs. I guess that would seem strange to you too? :) I have to admit, I can't see any upside the way you do it. You say that your way prevents an enourmous upheaval every time there is a new government. Well, our way does that too. First of all, we have our constitution, they can't change that in a heartbeat. And for the smaller things, they know that if they are being idiots, they will be out on their asses just as quickly as they got in. They don't want that. So we keep them in check. We. The people. They know that they work for us, if they screw up, we will get them fired. As it is in a democracy.

[@Joel86543]

This is nothing. Here in Albania a couple years ago our prime minister was also the minister of foreign affairs.

[@cireenasimcox1081]

The P.M. is not merely a mouthpiece for other people - they do have certain powers, which I'm sure someone else will know better than I. Just remember: - you started learning about UK parliamentary powers when a daft, pudgy and over-educated muppet was the PM. He who looked as though he'd plonked a bird's nest on his head. And who spoke classical languages. Which came in jolly handy when addressing the public in the 21stC.😂 You've learnt a little about Maggie Thatcher, haven't you? She was certainly a most formidable PM. And she affected England in ways it took decades to overcome. About former PMs & Presidents : it shook me rigid to discover those in the US are still addressed as Mr. President when they leave office. The same with military ranks once one has retired.Very confusing until I twigged to that.😊 And they have Security for the rest of their lives too. Why? How many former presidents have been victims of assassinations ...and, once again 'Why"?

[@peterlbaldwin511]

As a British born, but long-term resident of "The E.U.", I can honestly say that that, "Yes.. "America is Not Europe" and vice-versa"...Thankfully..! Europe has largely avoided the ingrained, but seldom acknowledged, American mantra of, "PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE"..! Throughout the E.U. there are better work conditions, with guaranteed annual holiday/vacation times, better universal" Health care", better "Work/Life Balance"..Need I go on..?

[@harumatsu3731]

As a Japanese i can confirm that every country has their own problems. And ALWAYS other countries better part looks appealing more than what you appreciate already

[@sharonwelsh8102]

I agree with you completely

[@luiscostaalves8849]

In America a guy in a Ferrari went to a gas station and everyone says ....WOW this guy worked a lot to afford this car. In Europe, a guy went to a gas station in a Ferrari, people just say ...Wow, this guy has robbed a lot to have this car, Proud to be Portuguese. Europe as a Comunitee has 50 years of age and the countries, and when it comes to take decisions, are stronger than than communitte because teh sense of nacionality (not patriotism) is very strong.

[@terjoe6643]

We Europeans think about everyone and the impact on all. We are not, generally, selfishly minded as a negative impact on one is a negative impact on society.

[@loucololosse]

Just a reminder that I'm not here to watch the original video but your reaction! Don't be afraid to pause and make dumb comments 😊

[@ESPER_Power]

An interesting topic. I am not from the USA or Europe but if possible I would like to ask a question. A while ago I saw a documentary that said that one of the reasons why Europe can finance its social programs is because they do not have to dedicate so much money to their defense, since they have many US military bases in Europe, but if At one moment the USA decided to close those bases, that would force the governments of Europe to spend more on their defense and that money would come from their social programs. I would like to know how true that argument is.

[@DyslecticAttack]

On the last bit, most European countries don't get "big swings every time there is an election" mainly because we don't have a 2 party system. We've got more than a dozen parties, who need the form coalitions to get in power. They need to work together, and help one another to find commonground to achieve their main directives. The new power can't just throw out or actively sabotage their opponent (like with the dem/rep stuff did with for example Obama care), they've got to play to their objectives, and it's in everyones interest to get as good of a compromise as possible, because altering it will be harder when it's in place (at least in theory, it does work like that for the most part in practice, but not completely that idealistic). This is also why prime ministers and presidents in Europe need less protection. They're figureheads without absolute power, and while they represent the coalition for those who are opposed, they're not the sole/main blame (it also helps that every idiot and their mother don't have access to ranged lethal force in their pocket, but yeah).

[@onewayroadtrip]

In Switzerland, we have a multi party system. And we have 7 Ministers. From all parties, voted by the people. And one of those 7 gets to be the spokesperson for one year

[@defizr]

I see Scalia is talking bollocks again.

[@Luredreier]

7:59 Well... Think of it this way, in my country it's normal for a 6 year old to ho alone out of the house, walk down to a bus stop, take a regular bus used by everyone somewhere, switch bus and then take the second one to school, with no adult supervision. If they want to go downtown to the cinema with their friends they can do so. 12:12 It's not really a cultural thing I feel. There's plenty of communities in the US where people didn't speak English at all prior to WW1. And many colonies started out not as British ones but colonies of other nations. However the British Empire and later the US won out on the continent, and everyone ended up in the same federal government. 16:54 Well, if you vote for a single person office directly you get a binary result, and that's just too simplified. For any given political party or candidate only about a fifth of the population *actually* agree with all or even most of their policies, everyone else at most just think they're less bad then the other guy... By *not* voting for the head of the government directly you leave more room for compromises. So with a system where you vote for a candidate directly people are essentially blackmailed into voting for someone that they don't agree with to avoid someone worse in power. So you have perhaps 2/5th of the population actually voting for a president candidate they genuinely agree with. And the rest have to put up with a government lead by people all thinking like that... In a parliamentary system with a proportional electoral system the parties will negotiate with each other for support. And while the parties that's not the two biggest parties generally won't get a prime minister they'll get cabinet positions and policy concessions. Cabinet positions means a seat at the table when decisions about the day to day running of the government is being made, and also that you get to lead a minestry, so the prime minister might be from one of the two biggest parties, but the finance minister might be from a different party, or the foreign affairs might be etc. A environmentalist party might value running the minestry responsible for enforcing environmental laws for instance more then a party focused on capitalism might be, as a example, while the later might care more about the budgets and the finance minestry. During the negotiations minestries might be split up or merged as needed. And the number of votes in the parliament available to a party matters a lot in how much they're able to negotiate for. A smaller party with gewer seats is easier to replace with another then a big one. If there's more then one possible way to get a majority the smaller parties might have less negotiating power then if there's only one option and they're the difference between success or failure. Every single seat matters in these negotiations, and as a result of that and our proportional system you essentially get the effect of *every* vote mattering as much as they do in the US swing states, but *everywhere*, even if a party wins somewhere it matters how much they did so etc. There's no goalpost of just having one more vote then another party to win. Also remember, if a parliament votes in a prime minister they can't really blame him for his policies and get away from their own responsibilities. They can't shift responsibility away from themselves to the head of the government for their own actions. 18:55 What you describe is actually a feature of your system, not ours. In a parliamentary system there's often less changes from one government to the next as you're going to need to compromise in order to come to power in the first place, and if you go too far in one direction you'll lose allies you need to come to power to begin with.

[@markwilson898]

There’s no perfect system. In the UK power and wealth have been concentrated in London and the SE of England because it’s a centralised state with limited devolution to the home nations. There is a big wealth gap between regions considering the UK is physically the same size as Colorado. I’m not a fanatical monarchist but I like the stability and balance of it. The Kings role is basically to deny absolute power to anyone else without actually having any real power himself. Eg the King can declare war but would have no money to fund it if Parliament disagreed. This would be a constitutional crisis that would be resolved by the King getting booted out in favour of a ceremonial president like Ireland and Germany. However, the House of Lords should be reformed to give the regions and nations more say about how new laws will affect them - that’s a big negative of how the UK functions at the moment.

[@EusebiusAT]

There's a mistake in the graph shown at the start of the video. The top 1% and bottom 50% were switched around. Just be aware of that.

[@lordofnumbers9317]

Just two political parties and you call it democracy? It shouldn't be like that. There isn't just left and right. More parties mean more perspectives, more new ideas and more movement in the development of the USA.

[@DageLV]

here its kinda complex voting system, bunch of parties and people can elect individuals, 100 people, i think they're called senate, they make the rules etc. And a prime minister. President has so little power he is basically a poster boy.

[@thomaseast7699]

Europe is not a country. You cannot compare US to Europe easily because of this. You can try and make generalizations sure, but you can't compare the govt of Europe or the govt of the US, because there is no govt of Europe.

[@ChrisRedfield--]

The UK is out of the European Union, and is not a representment of Governmental systems within the European Union member states.

[@phoneboxchicken4108]

The House of Lords cannot stop a bill from the Commons. It can only amend it and then send it back, or delay the enactment by 1 year. Up until 1911, it could kill parliamentary bills, and have a Lord as Prime Minister but David Lloyd George forced through the reforms because the Lords, which was dominated by land owning aristocrats, was blocking a budget. I think Lloyd George wanted a land tax to raise cash for new battleships and National Insurance, but the House of Lords rejected the whole budget.

[@icephoenix5466]

Somthing you Said left me in awe. A majority within the us wasnt english. 40% were german, about the same as Brits and the other percent were irish, italian and so on.

[@PeekabooEUDK]

High taxation works in countries where government corruption is low. If the corruption rate is high it wont work.

[@nagillim7915]

Speaking as a European, we don't all want to be more similar to each other. The French want to remain French, the Poles want to stay as Poles, the Greeks want to keep being Greek. Governing Europeans as a singular political unit is like herding cats. We all want to go in different directions and how do you compromise between over 2 dozen different sets of needs and priorities and ideals without satisfying no one?

[@Mic-yi5it]

9:05 as an italian i can tell you that the senate DOES have actual power, for italian laws to be approved they have to be approved by the majority of both chambers of the parliament, in special cases even majority is not enough, they probably have more powers than the us parliament has, its more or less the same for all european countries.

[@KME4698]

I think the American governmental system is better personally, so long as the feds dont overreach. The social programs, at least in the UK, are not worth the higher taxes. Our schools are some of the worst in the developed world, the NHS is lacklustre, the police are ineffective and incompetent. The welfare system incentivises people to not work, like in the USA. You can have two: affordability, quality or quantity. The NHS has affordability, somewhat good quantity, but bad quality. The US private healthcare has high quality and good quantity, but bad affordability. Socialised systems end up costing you more for lower quality in the end.

[@Wreenz]

Tax in Europe is it n many ways the one cost of living Besides housing. For US. It's different, the tax may be low but also doesn't include most of your costs. No retirement, no health care, no education is included so you buy those service's separate. This makes cost of living a better way to compare countries since tax doesn't tell that much alone.

[@Janie_Morrison]

I do know what you're trying to say I am listening

[@zanizone3617]

Maybe you cannot compare the US and Europe at a macro level. But this still doesn't justify brushing off solutions that have worked at a local level, just because things are set up differently around them. Also, it's not like the American system never worked. It did pretty well for a long time. So perhaps the problems come from actual add-ons and changes that came later, rather than immutable conditions set-up by the Founding Fathers, geography, culture or whatever. "Citizens United" and trickle down economics, anyone?

[@eternaldestiny5232]

In France, Medical bills are basically free, so it make sense. You have two differents cultures, but he doesn't mean you can't compare and see what is working and what is not

[@alexwtf80]

Senate in Italy is elected, not honorific, there are like 4-5 honorific members out of hundreds, and the senate must approve any law and can propose its own laws. Scalia is talking about something he doesn't understand.

[@mauroalagna]

in Europa prediligiamo il sistema democrazia parlamentare , gli esecutivi hanno bisogno di una maggioranza, compresi Francia e Inghilterra , anche se in Francia hanno una repubblica semipresidenziale, ma il governo sempre una maggioranza in parlamento deve avere. Sostanzialmente in Europa la differenza la fa il sistema elettorale. ogni sistema elettorale ha i suoi effetti che condiziona la formazione delle maggioranze. un sistema Maggioritario secco ha effetti diversi da un maggioritario a doppio turno. Un sistema elettorale proporzionale ha effetti ancora piu diversi, può essere puro o corretto con un premio di maggioranza , o come in Germania con uno sbarramento del 5 per cento. sistema simile lo ha il parlamento Europeo

[@AliothAncalagon]

The irony is that the US has ridiculously high taxes and high spending. But all the taxes are only collected from average people, while they don't profit from any of the spending.