The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer

 Let us deal a moment with one of the greatest capitalist cities of our modern times, perhaps the first. Amsterdam and to an extent Antwerp. Of Amsterdam, specifically, we observe,

“Making the most of her advantages of position, Amsterdam had built up a thriving trade before the middle of the sixteenth century, and was renowned for the number and size of her ships. This early prosperity, founded on the fisheries and the Baltic trade in which Netherlanders had eclipsed their Hanseatic rivals, broadened to include a carrying and entrepot trade between northern Europe, principally in grain, timber, pitch, tar, metals, hemp, flax, and fish, and western France, principally in wine and salt.” (Barbour, 1963, pp. 14-15)

 

From the 1500s, capitalism has been a reality. Through trade, commerce, banking, industry, and markets capitalism has emerged and thrived through the last few centuries. Many despise the idea of capitalism due to there being winners and losers. The truth is that in all periods pre and post capitalism there were always and still are winners and losers. There is no reason why we should allow ourselves to believe that it will ever be any different moving forward. Within the realm of competition, we measure winners and losers within capitalism based upon rich and poor. Of course, there is an in between. But the polarization of rich and poor are necessary for demonstrating how capitalism works to a degree.

 

Antwerp preceded the preeminence of Amsterdam’s capitalistic gains. So, some things may have passed on to Amsterdam which should not be a surprise. Amsterdam would eventually get into the banking industry and even financial markets as they became more metropolitan and cosmopolitan. Later capital began to flow more liquid which was shown during the shocks of the English and French wars,

“Because much of the capital active in Amsterdam was foreign-owned by Amsterdammers of foreign birth, and much Dutch-owned capital was not fixed in land, houses, or industrial plant, but in assets easily liquidated or transferred, it was peculiarly sensitive and mobile. The shocks of the English and French wars demonstrated this mobility.” (Barbour, 1963, p. 58)

 

The French invasion in 1672 caused the wealthy to send their wealth elsewhere. There were interests rates that went from 10 to 17 percent. Bonds from Holland lost 30 percent of value and even shares in the East India company lost half of their market value. The bank of Amsterdam was able to make it through the crisis due to its large store of gold and silver. During the struggle against Louis XIV the poor were heavily taxed while the rich were growing richer. Seems similar to today when one peers into the Panama Papers and other works. Many are upset with the rich and how they are able to hide their money to evade paying taxes as the ‘middle-class’ and others pay. One would be shocked to find out that it is in fact not illegal. While the next explanations will not deal specifically with wars, one method is to purchase a shell company and go through a series of steps to utilize that shell company to shield money from being taxed. Before we go any further let us define some very important terms.

 

Nominee

"A nominee is a person or firm whose name is titled on securities or other property to facilitate certain transactions or transfers while leaving the original customer as the actual or legal owner. In this way, a nominee can serve as a custodian.

 

A nominee account is a type of account in which a stockbroker holds shares belonging to clients, making buying and selling those shares easier and for safekeeping. In such an arrangement, shares are said to be held in street name." (Hayes, 2020)

Nominee Director

Obermayer and Obermaier observes,

“The real owners (or, if they are more cautious, their lawyers) are generally given a power of attorney by the nominee directors to access the bank account or the safe.

… to stay shut away from the prying eyes of inquisitive public prosecutors, tax officials and fraud investigators.” (Bastian Obermayer, 2016, p. 15)

Also,

 

"The front man or woman, known as the nominee director in offshore jargon, assures the true owner that they will follow their instructions and that they don’t have any claims against them or the company (‘Nominee Director Declaration’). They then give the true owner, the beneficial owner, a ‘power of attorney’ that makes them the de facto director. In the third and final document, which isn’t filled out by default, the nominee director submits their resignation (‘Resignation Letter’). The nominee director signs this letter and passes it on to the real owner, but doesn’t enter a date, meaning that the real owner can get rid of the fake one at any time, even with retrospective effect. The nominee director is often deprived of their rights from the very start.” (Bastian Obermayer, 2016, p. 173)

 

Nominee Shareholders

 

“If there is a need for even more stringent anonymity, then Mossack Fonseca can provide not only nominee directors but also ‘nominee shareholders’. These are individuals or shell companies that hold shares virtually, on trust. Should Mossack Fonseca be forced to name one or more of a company’s shareholders, for example during an investigation, this does not mean that they are the ultimate owners, not in the slightest. The real owners can hide behind this second protective screen.” (Bastian Obermayer, 2016, p. 16)

 

Beneficial Owner

"A beneficial owner is a person who enjoys the benefits of ownership even though the title to some form of property is in another name.

 

It also means any individual or group of individuals who, either directly or indirectly, has the power to vote or influence the transaction decisions regarding a specific security, such as shares in a company." (Chen, 2020)

 

Lastly, Obermayer and Obermaier observes,

“Incidentally, Commerzbank in particular was initially very wary of working with Mossfon. Staff a the bank expressed concern that secret deals could be leaked or that nominee directors could disappear with their clients’ money. Mossack Fonseca explained the system over and over and finally suggested a particularly safe option: bank clients could conceal their money in offshore companies under the protective cover of an anonymous trust. This would give clients ‘the advantage, when asked by the German tax authorities, of being able to truthfully answer no to the questions listed above regarding the account holder, beneficial owner and authorization’. In plain English, it means clients would be able to inform the tax office that they do not own the account and that they have no access to it. This is because the account belongs pro forma to the company, and the company belongs pro forma to the trust – which, in turn, appoints the client as a beneficiary.” (Bastian Obermayer, 2016, pp. 150-151)

 

In conclusion we will sum up by stating that the rich who have access to more resources and information as it would seem not only in times previous but also in modern times if prudent continue to keep what they have accumulated and tend to accumulate more. Does this imply that you must be or get rich? Not necessarily. However, living within ones’ means would be the key regardless.

 

In today’s world as demonstrated earlier but now given by way of summary, a person or company purchases a shell company. Through documentation a person is approached to be a nominee director which is a sort of front person who appears to run the company. Since it is a corporation, it needs shareholders to appear to be a viable and functioning company. The person or company approaches others to entice them to become nominee shareholders of the shell company. Now the real director(s) and shareholder(s) are shielded from the public documents. Then you have beneficial ownership the true owners can hide behind the names of others. Of course, this is all done with a payment to the nominees and those in front of the beneficial ownership. Sometimes it is not done with a payment but through bribes, blackmail, etc. There were other methods utilized during the days of Amsterdam’s capitalist prominence. While the modern demonstration did not implicate war the more modern wars were utilized similarly. We will explore that in time as well.

 

References

Barbour, V. (1963). Capitalism in Amsterdam in the 17th Century. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Bastian Obermayer, F. O. (2016). The Panama Papers. London, England: Oneworld Publications Ltd.

Chen, J. (2020, November 17). Beneficial Owner. (G. Scott, Editor) Retrieved June 15, 2021, from Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/beneficialowner.asp#:~:text=A%20beneficial%20owner%20is%20a,property%20is%20in%20another%20name.

Hayes, A. (2020, December 30). Nominee. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nominee.asp