Arbitrage and global cones: Another counterexample

Monteiro, PK;Page, FH;Wooders, MH
(1999) Social Choice and Welfare —

Files

pdfdocument.pdf
  • Restricted Access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 111.12 KB
Request a copy

Details

Authors
  • Monteiro, PK
    Author
  • Page, FH
    Author
  • Wooders, MH
    Author
Abstract
Chichilnisky (1997) claims that another variant of her condition limiting arbitrage is necessary and sufficient for existence of equilibrium and nonemptiness of the core in an economy with short sales allowing half lines in indifference surfaces. Her proof, however, is based on a proposition purporting to relate her notion of "global cone" (see Chichilnisky (1997) for references) to the Page-Wooders "increasing cone." In this paper, we present a counterexample showing that parts (i) and (ii) of Chichilnisky's proposition are false. Thus, Chichilnisky's claimed result is without proof.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

Monteiro, P., Page, F., & Wooders, M. (1999). Arbitrage and global cones: Another counterexample. Social Choice and Welfare. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003550050147