Arbitrage and global cones: Another counterexample

Frank Page, Myrna Wooders and Paulo Monteiro

Social Choice and Welfare, 1999, vol. 16, issue 2, 337-346

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.

Date: 1999-01-28
Note: Received: 18 August 1997/Accepted: 30 January 1998
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/papers/9016002/90160337.pdf (application/pdf)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted

Related works:
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:spr:sochwe:v:16:y:1999:i:2:p:337-346

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... c+theory/journal/355

Access Statistics for this article

Social Choice and Welfare is currently edited by Bhaskar Dutta, Marc Fleurbaey, Elizabeth Maggie Penn and Clemens Puppe

More articles in Social Choice and Welfare from Springer, The Society for Social Choice and Welfare Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().