He said that integrated transport only exists in a few countries. Most of those countries where it doesn't exist are in the developing world.
The quote was...
Some cursory research of the cities shown above, representing a small proportion of the worlds' countries, quickly revealed differing levels of 'integration' pf public transport systems.
That means that it encompasses on a few countries and even then, there is a disparity in how integrated transport is or how good it actually is. Exemplars like Netherlands or Germany aren't matched by, say Hungary.
Money can easily be made available given sufficient political will, and given the spread of countries where integrated transport exists, both poor and rich countries can afford it. As pointed out by @Bletchleyite you can just adjust fares according to the relevant funding.
I may be reading this wrong. At one point, money can be given if the will is there, but then you say you can adjust the fares according to the relevant funding - are you suggesting that it's farebox revenue that pays for the extra funding required?
People who don't want something always provide an excuse. Brexit and bus deregulation prove that lies work. Another excuse given earlier was density. People on the right use "crowded cities in the UK" as an excuse for restricting immigration, and "low density British cities" as an excuse not to provide good public transport.
Again, we're conflating Brexit, immigration and population density and that makes no sense.
Public transport in the UK is most definitely advantageous because of the population density. However, we don't have joined up thinking in terms of the construction of new developments to make them accessible to public transport. Nor do we have the politicians brave enough to stand up and level the playing field in terms of the cost of car usage vs. the costs of operating public transport.
The idea of deregulation was two fold. One was that competition would bring more customer focus, more innovation etc. That did happen in some instances but overall, it arguably failed as public monopolies were replaced eventually by private ones. The other plank of deregulation was to remove the financial burden from the public purse; let's not forget that before deregulation, passenger numbers were declining massively and the publicly owned organisations (NBC, SBG, PTEs, municipals) were losing a load of money and that was before you consider that they were getting new bus grants, fuel duty rebate etc. Let's not forget the context in which deregulation happened.