A case for incomplete markets

Lawrence Blume, Timothy Cogley, David Easley, Thomas Sargent and Viktor Tsyrennikov

Journal of Economic Theory, 2018, vol. 178, issue C, 191-221

Abstract: If two rational agents want to trade and there are no externalities, then trade is Pareto improving. Economists generally oppose restrictions on such trade. Complete markets allocations are Pareto optimal and thus complete markets are generally viewed as good. But when individuals want to trade because of heterogeneous beliefs, this standard argument is less compelling. We illustrate this in a standard general equilibrium setting and explore potential social benefits from restrictions on trade that make markets incomplete.

Keywords: Social welfare; Heterogeneous beliefs; Spurious unanimity; Speculation; Incomplete markets; Financial regulation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D52 D61 D71 D83 D84 G18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053118305829
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: A Case for Incomplete Markets (2015)
Working Paper: The Case for Incomplete Markets (2014)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:178:y:2018:i:c:p:191-221

DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2018.09.004

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economic Theory is currently edited by A. Lizzeri and K. Shell

More articles in Journal of Economic Theory from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().