Limited arbitrage is necessary and sufficient for the existence of an equilibrium

In Chichilnisky (Working Paper No. 586, 1991), Chichilnisky (Working Paper No. 650, 1992) and Chichilnisky (Economic Theory, 1995, 5, 79–108), I introduced the concept of a global cone and used it to define a condition on endowments and preferences, ‘limited arbitrage’, which I showed to be necessary and sufficient for the existence of a competitive equilibrium. In response to a comment (Monteiro et al., Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1997, 26, 000-000), I show here that the authors misunderstood my results by focussing on brief announcements which cover other areas, social choice (Chichilnisky, American Economic Review, 1994, 427–434 and algebraic topology (Chichilnisky, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 1993, 29, 189–207), rather than on the publication which contains may proofs on equilibrium. The comment's example is irrelevant to my results in Chichilnisky (Economic Theory, 1995, 5, 79–108) because it starts from different conditions. Limited arbitrae is always necessary and sufficient for the existence of a competitive equilibrium, with or without short sales, with the global cones as I defined them, and exactly as proved in Chichilnisky (Economic Theory, 1995, 5, 79–108).