Established Ethos of Systemic Robbery Versus Antithetic
Unanimously Agreeable Philosophy in US General Election

Sankarshan Acharya
Founder, Pro-Prosperity.Com and Citizens for Development

March 2, 2016

To: Mr. Donald J. Trump (Republican Presidential Candidate)
Cc: US President Barack Obama, Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Presidential Candidate)

Please feel free to circulate.
This is also available and updated

Subject: Unanimously agreeable philosophy of governance - to not rob individual or common wealth, even surreptitiously - versus an antithetic established system of surreptitious robbery.        

Congratulations for your resounding victory so far!

Your campaign seems to be supported by an anti-establishment coalition movement seeking an era of unanimously agreeable philosophy of governance.  Your penultimate success can be guaranteed through an unambiguous articulation of the unanimously agreeable philosophy that will attract (without qualms) the vast majority of anti-establishment voters, including those now supporting Senator Bernie Sanders. 

The unanimously agreeable philosophy of governance is a unique "Universal Religion" to found the United States of America as a true unified melting pot by transcending race, ethnicity, gender, age or erstwhile religion (like Islam, Christianity, etc) imposed on children by their parents.[1] 

The general election then will be based on two antithetic philosophies:

A. Unanimously agreeable philosophy of governance to repeal all existing rules of law that facilitate systemic robbery of wealth creators and never to pass any such law to grant privilege to anyone for even surreptitious robbery of individual or common wealth.  This philosophy will also mean abolition of all direct and indirect quotas and subsidies for anyone.

B. The established philosophy that enacts laws to facilitate systemic robbery of wealth creators and to share the loot with the pundits that promote such laws and with lawmakers that enact the laws to perpetuate and fortify the system in which the usurpers enjoy privilege with impunity while decimating the freedom, due to robbery, of wealth creators that prop the system. 

This world of established politics and governance has thrived thus far due to UNANIMITY of elected leaders profiting from systemic robbery (this can be empirically tested by auditing wealth of each elected leader and his/her family before entry and after exit of the leader from established politics) in:

  • enactment of beyond-judicial-review laws to guarantee systemic robbery of enterprising wealth creators with impunity,
  • distributing crumbs to the thus impoverished individuals to ostensibly display benevolence of usurpers,
  • public denunciation of the remaining wealth creators as the cause of impoverishment of people, so that they cannot organize opposition to the established system,
  • brainwashing the impoverished people that continual financial depressions - which obviously ensues impoverishment of a vast majority of wealth creators due to  systemic robbery - are caused by god (slap of invisible hands).

This established system of governance is obviously not unanimously agreeable to the vast majority of wealth creators, who have been ironically propping even the systemic robbers.  The wealth creators are actually the principals of the country.

The established system of governance should also be unacceptable to the usurpers when the wealth creators fully cognize how they are being robbed and organize opposition against the system with a vow to claw back the usurped wealth.

The antithetic system to not rob anyone's individual wealth or common wealth should be unanimously agreeable: no one including the robbers want to be robbed.

The unanimously agreeable system (rules) of governance is not some esoteric Acharya's philosophy (point of view).  This system is attained in general equilibrium within a comprehensive mathematical model of microeconomics among stakeholders of the economy (dynamic game theory model) designed to obtain macro policies.  This mathematical model is the most general model ever scripted in the literature.  The established punditry has thus far failed to challenge it or its axioms. Elite academic journals have returned this paper along with my submission fees without a review!  As a dispassionate researcher, however, I continue to welcome any challenge by any pundit, government or industry leader in the establishment.  I have conveyed this to President Obama and Congressional leaders.  

Ultimately, though, the elite academy has accepted (perhaps not unanimously yet) my philosophy of unanimously agreeable system of governance: my paper proving that the current system of money and finance is fundamentally unfair (unconstitutional), unstable and economically inefficient and presenting the unanimously agreeable system of governance as the alternative was invited and published in 2013 by the Journal of Financial Transformation, which has 18 Nobel Laureates as authors.

Being dispassionate means apolitical.  This means that I do not subscribe to any political movement, though I am naturally in every political movement which explicitly subscribes to the unanimously agreeable philosophy of governance - which is to not rob private or common wealth even surreptitiously, which means explicit avowal to repeal all laws that even surreptitiously facilitate systemic robbery of wealth creators who are the true pillars of a country.

Students have been walking out of prominent professor's classes in the elite academy because they are not taught the whole truth of how the 2008 financial crash occurred.  In contrast, students in my class want me discuss the causes and remedies for failure of markets rigged by laws that grant privilege to a few to systemically rob wealth creators with impunity. 

My students have written that most of the classes in the business school except mine should be scrapped.  This tells why a top investment bank would approach me with lavish payment to testify for it as an expert before US Congress, Regulatory Agencies and Courts.  Why didn't the top investment bank go to established pundits in the elite academy?  It approached me in March 2010.  I refused to be an expert supporting its shenanigans even if I was paid billions of dollars.  Goldman Sachs was indicted in April 2010 to pay a hefty fine.  The US Congressional Panel found in 2010 that the established pundits and their disciples, anointed as financial honchos and regulators failed, and their failure caused the 2008 manmade crisis as per Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report published in January 2011.  Mega US banks have paid 100's of billions of dollars in fines for fraud of the kind discovered in my research, thanks to Mr. Preet Bharara, Manhattan Attorney, with whom I have communicated extensively.

I briefly discussed this in a class as one of my students asked what I thought about Senator Sanders.  I told that Sanders' rant against Wall Street sounds like he wants to demolish the road and buildings there, while he has tacitly supported, if not voted, for many of those laws that facilitate robbery of wealth creators.  Sanders has never stated any law that facilitates systemic robbery that he would repeal.  One of my students (who favored Senator Sanders) agreed with me and sent me a news article which shows how Sanders has voted for one such laws.  I felt such students can be drawn towards your candidacy if you make explicit the laws that cause systemic robbery of enterprising individuals that you will repeal with an assurance that the unanimously agreeable philosophy of governance will be an explicit preamble of the constitution.

Sent on February 29, 2016 to Mr. Donald J. Trump with copy to President Obama and Senator Bernie Sanders

Dear Mr. Trump,

It is heartening that you have tweeted a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Whether or not Gandhi actually said this is moot. 

You certainly have, however, the company of a triumphant dispassionate discoverer and pursuer of nonpareil unique unanimously agreeable rules of governance for individual freedom.*  The strength drawn from this famous quote helped him to not cow down or be cajoled or lured for submission to the vested establishment punditry.  He was never flinched by deliberate blockage of his research in the journals controlled by the elite vested pundits to suppress his career and purge him from the academy. His unanimously agreeable rules of governance have ultimately triumphed over the established system of robbery advocated by the established pundits.  As a dispassionate researcher, he still welcomes, though, any rationally articulated opposition to his unanimously agreeable rules of governance from any pundit.  

Gandhi was known to some of his close associates as the angriest individual during his times.  He was fighting for freedom of people suppressed by an inefficient colonial system of governance of countries like USA and India which have now become major democracies.  Your anger over the inefficient colonial era system of governance prevailing in USA - that continues to stifle individual freedom - certainly has precedents and is reasonable. 

I have copied this to President Obama who too has quoted Gandhi with a volition to undo the established inefficient system of governance.  Beware, though, that his administration was hijacked by the same establishment.

In this context and at this juncture, it is necessary for your mission to fathom the virulent (though non-violent) war of independence from the now-failed established second-best system. 

My selfless nonviolent war against the established second-best system and triumph over it is articulated as "unanimously agreeable war for freedom,"

Shaping a unanimously agreeable enemy and specifying a unified war to completely decimate the enemy necessitates further public discourse and strong, dispassionate, independent, selfless leadership.  I have posted my writing on a frequently browsed website ( with 2.5 million visitors over the last two years. 

Comments are welcome from leaders, their followers as well as lobbyists and whosoever wants to perpetuate or fight against the current system of governance.

With best regards,


Director, Research Center on Finance and Governance