World's Richest & Poorest Governments

Tweet

We know the world's richest man is Carlos Slim Helu of Mexico, followed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet of USA  . How about governments? Which countries government is the richest (having most money that is, in US$. If you are expecting North American and European nations, you might be disappointed. While the countries look rich, wealthy European nations can't withstand a prolonged major financial crisis, just like Greece . The USA might have the biggest economy, but the American government is not at all rich; in fact, it can't even take out $150bn if asked to now without resorting to borrowing. To date the US government has borrowed $14 trillion! The UK , likewise, while the country/people are rich, the government isn't. The UK government's debt stands at $9 trillion now. World's Richest Government   Richest governments after 2008-2009 financial crisis: 1. China National reserves: $2,454,300,000,000 2. Japan National reserves: $1,019,000,000,000 3. Russia National reserves: $458,020,000,000 4. Saudi Arabia National reserves: $395,467,000,000 5. Taiwan National reserves: $362,380,000,000 6. India National reserves: $279,422,000,000 7. South Korea National reserves: $274,220,000,000 8. Switzerland National reserves: $262,000,000,000 9. Hong Kong , China National reserves: $256,000,000,000 10. Brazil National reserves: $255,000,000,000 Here are the rest, in million US $: 11 Singapore / 203,436 12 Germany / 189,100 13 Thailand / 150,000 14 Algeria / 149,000 15 France / 140,848 16 Italy / 133,104 17 United States / 124,176 18 Mexico / 100,096 19 Iran / 96,560 20 Malaysia / 96,100 21 Poland / 85,232 22 Libya / 79,000 23 Denmark / 76,315 24 Turkey / 71,859 25 Indonesia / 69,730 26 United Kingdom / 69,091 27 Israel / 62,490 28 Canada / 57,392 29 Norway / 49,223 30 Iraq / 48,779 31 Argentina / 48,778 32 Philippines / 47,650 33 Sweden / 46,631 34 United Arab Emirates / 45,000 35 Hungary / 44,591 36 Romania / 44,056 37 Nigeria / 40,480 38 Czech Republic / 40,151 39 Australia / 39,454 40 Lebanon / 38,600 41 Netherlands / 38,372 42 South Africa / 38,283 43 Peru / 37,108 44 Egypt / 35,223 45 Venezuela / 31,925 46 Ukraine / 28,837 47 Spain / 28,195 48 Colombia / 25,141 49 Chile / 24,921 50 Belgium / 24,130 51 Brunei / 22,000 52 Morocco / 21,873 53 Vietnam / 17,500 54 Macau / 18,730 55 Kazakhstan / 27,549 56 Kuwait / 19,420 57 Angola / 19,400 58 Austria / 18,079 59 Serbia / 17,357 60 Pakistan / 16,770 61 New Zealand / 16,570 62 Bulgaria / 16,497 63 Ireland / 16,229 63 Portugal / 16,254 64 Croatia / 13,720 65 Jordan / 12,180 66 Finland / 11,085 67 Bangladesh / 10,550 68 Botswana / 10,000 69 Tunisia / 9,709 70 Azerbaijan / 9,316 71 Bolivia / 8,585 72 Trinidad and Tobago / 8,100 73 Yemen / 7,400 74 Uruguay / 8,104 75 Oman / 7,004 76 Latvia / 6,820 77 Lithuania / 6,438 78 Qatar / 6,368 79 Cyprus / 6,176 80 Belarus / 6,074 81 Syria / 6,039 82 Uzbekistan / 5,600 83 Luxembourg / 5,337 84 Guatemala / 5,496 85 Greece / 5,207 86 Bosnia and Herzegovina / 5,151 87 Cuba / 4,247 88 Costa Rica / 4,113 89 Equatorial Guinea / 3,928 90 Ecuador / 3,913 91 Iceland / 3,823 92 Paraguay / 3,731 93 Turkmenistan / 3,644 94 Estonia / 3,583 95 Malta / 3,522 96 Myanmar / 3,500 97 Bahrain / 3,474 98 Kenya / 3,260 99 Ghana / 2,837 100 El Salvador / 2,845 101 Sri Lanka / 2,600 102 Cambodia / 2,522 103 Côte d'Ivoire / 2,500 104 Tanzania / 2,441 105 Cameroon / 2,341 106 Macedonia / 2,243 107 Dominican Republic / 2,223 108 Papua New Guinea / 2,193 109 Honduras / 2,083 110 Armenia / 1,848 111 Slovakia / 1,809 112 Mauritius / 1,772 113 Albania / 1,615 114 Kyrgyzstan / 1,559 115 Jamaica / 1,490 116 Mozambique / 1,470 117 Gabon / 1,459 118 Senegal / 1,350 119 Georgia / 1,300 120 Panama / 1,260 121 Sudan / 1,245 122 Zimbabwe / 1,222 123 Slovenia / 1,105 124 Moldova / 1,102 125 Zambia / 1,100 126 Nicaragua / 1,496 127 Mongolia / 1,000 128 Chad / 997 129 Burkina Faso / 897 130 Lesotho / 889 131 Ethiopia / 840 132 Benin / 825 133 Namibia / 750 134 Madagascar / 745 135 Barbados / 620 136 Laos / 514 137 Rwanda / 511 138 Swaziland / 395 139 Togo / 363 140 Cape Verde / 344 141 Tajikistan / 301 142 Guyana / 292 143 Haiti / 221 144 Belize / 150 145 Vanuatu / 149 146 Malawi / 140 147 Gambia / 120 148 Guinea / 119 149 Burundi / 118 150 Seychelles / 118 151 Samoa / 70 152 Tonga / 55 153 Liberia / 49 154 Congo / 36 155 São Tomé and Príncipe / 36 156 Eritrea / 22 Big national reserves doesn't guarantee prosperity however, for instance, the yearly expenses for China 's government is $1.11 trillion, their government must always think of economic growth and making more money. The Malaysian gov't overspent $13bn last year, if it goes on like this their reserves can only last for 7 yrs. The Singaporean government overspent $3bn last year, much of it rescuing their banks from financial crisis, if it goes on like this their reserves can last 68 yrs. The Swiss gov't overspent $1bn last year, if it goes on like this their reserves can last 262 yrs. A country normally can borrow up to 100% its GDP, a very strong industrial country or very financial stable nation can borrow up to perhaps 200% its GDP, debts over 250% GDP the country is bankrupted. Greece 's Debts Is 113.40% GDP, In Danger As It Is Not Considered A Strong Industrial Or Financial Country. Iceland Is 107.60%, Also In Crisis As It Is Not So Strong Industrial Or Financially. Singapore Debts Is 113.10%, Not In Hot Water Due To Its Global Financial Hub Status, And Also Its Financial Strength. It's Only Dangerous For Singapore When It Reaches 200% Japan Debts Is 189.30%, Still Under Radar As A Powerful Industrial Nation. It Needs To Panic Only At Around 200% US Has The World Largest Debts, But It Is Only 62% Its GDP, It Is Not In Any Immediate Danger Of Bankruptcy. Zimbabwe Debts Is 282.60% GDP, It Is A Bankrupted Nation. Malaysia Debts Is Currently At 53.70% GDP. Hong Kong And Taiwan Is Doing Pretty Good With Debts At 32-37%GDP South Korea Is Even Better With Debts At 23.5% GDP China Is Very Stable With Debts At 16.90% GDP Russia Is Like A Big Mountain With Debts Only  at  6.30% GDP There Are Only 5 Countries With No Debt (I.E. 0%) : Brunei , Liechtenstein , Palau , Nieu, And Macau Of China .

70% of Science Award Finalists Are Children of Immigrants

Tweet


Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer

Immigrant parents' focus on science and math pays off for their kids, a new report finds. CREDIT: © Jonathan Ross | Dreamstime.com View full size image

Immigration is a boon to American science and math, a new report asserts, noting that 70 percent of the finalists in a recent prestigious science competition are the children of immigrants.

The report by the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonprofit research group in Arlington, Va., states that many immigrant parents emphasize hard science and math education for their children, viewing those fields as paths to success.

Statistics supporting that belief: According to a recent Georgetown University study on the value of undergraduate majors, the lifetime median annual income for someone with a bachelor's degree in engineering is $75,000, compared with $29,000 for a counseling or psychology major. [Infographic: Highest-paying College Majors]

That study found that the highest earners are petroleum engineers, with median annual earnings of $120,000.

Only 12 percent of Americans are foreign-born, the NFAP report says. Even so, children of immigrants took 70 percent of the finalist slots in the 2011 Intel Science Talent Search Competition, an original-research competition for high school seniors.



Of the 40 finalists, 28 had parents born in other countries: 16 from China, 10 from India, one from South Korea and one from Iran.

"In proportion to their presence in the U.S. population, one would expect only one child of an Indian (or Chinese) immigrant parent every two and a half years to be an Intel Science Search finalist, not 10 in a year," wrote the report's author, NFAP director Stuart Anderson.

Finalists interviewed for the report attributed their interest in research to their parents' attitudes.

"Our parents brought us up with love of science as a value," David Kenneth Tang-Quan, whose parents emigrated from China to California, told Anderson, according to the report.

Still, children of immigrants face barriers outside of the education system. According to the Georgetown report, racial disparities in pay persist even within science fields. Whites with an undergraduate major in engineering out-earn Asians with the same degree by about $8,000 a year. African-American and Hispanic engineering graduates fare worse, making about $60,000 and $56,000 per year, respectively, compared with whites' $80,000.

Asians out-earn whites in the fields of health, law and public policy; psychology and social work; and biology and life sciences.

The fact that children of immigrants excel in science and math should be taken into account when making immigration policy, Anderson wrote: "The results should serve as a warning against new restrictions on legal immigration, both family and employment-based immigration, since such restrictions are likely to prevent many of the next generation of outstanding scientists and researcher from emerging in America."

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.

• Top 5 Myths About Girls, Math and Science
• 10 Ways to Keep Your Mind Sharp
• Extreme Living: Scientists at the End of the Earth

 Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Get to know the auditors

Tweet

OPTIMISTICALLY CAUTIOUS By ERROL OH

There's a price to pay for taking audit quality for granted.

A LOT is being said about the audit profession these days. After all, why should the auditors be out of the line of sight in the frenzy of finger-pointing in the wake of the global financial crisis?

It's easy to assign blame on hindsight, but nevertheless, when large and seemingly invulnerable businesses have collapsed or have come close to oblivion as a result of large-scale mismanagement and fraud, it's safe to conclude that a lot of regulators and professionals have surely dropped the ball.

They have missed the warning signs and have failed to raise the alarm. There's no doubt that the auditors belong in this group.

In a consultation paper released last October, the European Commission (EC) observes: “While the role played (in the financial crisis) by banks, hedge funds, rating agencies, supervisors or central banks has been questioned and analysed in depth in many instances, limited attention has been given so far to how the audit function could be enhanced in order to contribute to increased financial stability.”

This so-called Green Paper, titled Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis, solicited responses to questions that were designed to help the EC figure out how to improve the European audit market. However, many of the issues raised are applicable in most other parts of the world.

Then, in January this year, the New York-based International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) came out with a thought piece called Audit Quality: An IAASB Perspective. This publication too sees a connection between the financial crisis and the auditors.

“The turbulent events of the global financial crisis have highlighted the critical importance of credible, high-quality financial reporting. They have also demonstrated the importance of considering the role of audit quality in the broader context of quality financial reporting.

Achieving quality financial reporting depends on the integrity of each of the links in the financial reporting supply chain,” wrote IAASB chairman Professor Arnold Schilder.

“As one of those links, the external audit plays a major role in supporting the quality of financial reporting around the world, whether in the context of the capital markets, the public sector or the private or non-public sector. It is an important part of the regulatory and supervisory infrastructure, and thus an activity of significant public interest.”



Naturally, the enforcement agencies sometimes have a more severe view on how the auditors have contributed to the crisis. Last December, the New York attorney general sued Ernst & Young, the longtime auditors of Lehman Brothers, whose application for bankruptcy protection in September 2008 is considered one of the triggers of the crisis. The lawsuit alleged that the Ernst & Young helped Lehman Brothers engage in a “massive accounting fraud”.

Another Big Four firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), also had to endure the harsh glare of publicity recently in the aftermath of a large corporation's downfall. In this case, the company is India's Satyam Computer Services, whose chairman confessed that the IT service provider's accounts had been falsified.
Last month, the United States' Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) announced a settled disciplinary order against five PricewaterhouseCoopers International firms based in India. Two of those firms were slapped with a US$1.5mil penalty.

This is in addition to a US$6mil penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against the five firms. The combined $7.5mil penalty imposed in this matter is the largest that the SEC and PCAOB have assessed against any registered foreign accounting firm.

On May 16, the IAASB issued a consultation paper titled Enhancing the Value of Auditor Reporting: Exploring Options for Change. “The purpose of this international consultation is to determine whether there are common views among key users of audited financial statements and other parties to the financial reporting process about the usefulness of auditor reporting, and to explore possible options to enhance the quality, relevance and value of auditor reporting,” the board explains.

Clearly, now is as good a time as any to have discussions on the importance of the work of auditors. The question is, are Malaysian investors participating in this dialogue? Going by how shareholders are generally passive about the appointment of auditors of listed companies, the answer can only be no.

For that matter, when was the last time we hear minority shareholders openly and vigorously questioning the management and board's choice of auditors? It's standard for an AGM agenda to include the re-appointment of the auditors and the authorisation of the directors to fix the auditors' remuneration. Year in and year out, the shareholders at the AGM will dutifully pass such resolutions on the assumption that the directors and the auditors are doing what they're supposed to be doing when it comes to ensuring audit quality.
The average minority shareholder of a listed company probably doesn't even know which firm audits the company. There's this dangerous perception that all auditors are more or less the same, and that it's not up to the investors to demand for audit quality.

There are several questions that shareholders (and investors, in general) should be asking about the auditors and their selection by the management.

How were the auditors picked, and how did the board satisfy itself that it had found the best firm for the job? Who is the partner of the firm who will oversee the audit and how is he qualified to handle that role? Do the audit fees reflect the extent of work required? Bear in mind that in audit, a bargain is not always a good thing. If the same firm has been the auditors for a long time, is there a need to consider a change? How do the auditors ensure independence?

Yes, these are rather dull and procedural areas, but isn't it better to tackle these questions now than after the breakdown of a company?

Executive editor Errol Oh has said this before and he'll say it again many people don't understand what is it that auditors really do.