:2003].

[^21]: By contrast, [@KeCr:82] imposed a  condition at all price vectors. Imposing condition at every money endowment leads to a strictly stronger condition than Definition \[def:gsub\]\[part:gsub\] in the presence of income effects [@schlegel2018trading].

[^22]: Fact \[fac:subExist\] is a version of Theorem 1 in [@HaKoNiOsWe:11] for exchange economies and follows from Proposition 4.6 in [@BaKl:19]. See [@KeCr:82] and [@GuSt:99] for earlier versions that assume that valuations are monotone.

[^23]: Fact \[fac:subMaxDomain\] is a version of Theorem 2 in [@GuSt:99] and Theorem 4 in [@yang2017maximal] that applies when $\Feas{k}$ can be strictly contained in $\{0,1\}^I$, as well as a version of Theorem 7 in [@HaKoNiOsWe:11] for exchange economies. For sake of completeness, we give a proof of Fact \[fac:subMaxDomain\] in Appendix \[app:maxDomain\]. The proof shows that the statement would hold if $|J| \geq |I|$ and agents $k \not= i$ were restricted to unit-demand valuations—as in Theorem 2 in [@GuSt:99].

[^24]: [@FlJaJaTe:19] worked with a matching model and considered equilibrium with personalized pricing, but their arguments also apply in exchange economies without personalized pricing. However, [@FlJaJaTe:19] only required that each agent sees goods as  for a fixed endowment of goods and money. Our notion of  considers a fixed endowment of goods but a variable endowment of money, and therefore the existence result of [@FlJaJaTe:19] is not strictly a special case of Theorem \[thm:netSubExist\]. Moreover, [@FlJaJaTe:19] also allowed for frictions such as transaction taxes and commissions in their existence result.

[^25]: Indeed, recall that Example \[eg:quasilogDualVal\] tells us that agent $j$’s  at each utility level is a positive linear transformation of $\quasivalFn{j}$. The conclusion follows by Remark \[rem:netSubDual\].


: 2003 ]. 

 [ ^21 ]: By contrast, [ @KeCr:82 ] imposed a   condition at all price vector. levy condition at every money endowment leads to a strictly strong condition than Definition   \[def: gsub\]\[part: gsub\ ] in the presence of income effect [ @schlegel2018trading ]. 

 [ ^22 ]: Fact   \[fac: subExist\ ] is a translation of Theorem 1 in [ @HaKoNiOsWe:11 ] for exchange economies and follows from Proposition 4.6 in [ @BaKl:19 ]. See [ @KeCr:82 ] and [ @GuSt:99 ] for early versions that assume that valuation are monotonic. 

 [ ^23 ]: Fact   \[fac: subMaxDomain\ ] is a version of Theorem 2 in [ @GuSt:99 ] and Theorem 4 in [ @yang2017maximal ] that applies when $ \Feas{k}$ can be strictly contained in $ \{0,1\}^I$, as well as a adaptation of Theorem 7 in [ @HaKoNiOsWe:11 ] for exchange economies. For sake of completeness, we give a validation of Fact   \[fac: subMaxDomain\ ] in Appendix   \[app: maxDomain\ ]. The proof shows that the argument would hold if $ |J| \geq |I|$ and agent $ k \not= i$ were restricted to unit - demand valuations — as in Theorem 2 in [ @GuSt:99 ]. 

 [ ^24 ]: [ @FlJaJaTe:19 ] work with a matching model and considered equilibrium with personalized pricing, but their arguments besides use in exchange economies without personalized pricing. However, [ @FlJaJaTe:19 ] only required that each agent sees goods as   for a fixed endowment of good and money. Our notion of   considers a fixate endowment of good but a variable endowment of money, and therefore the existence leave of [ @FlJaJaTe:19 ] is not strictly a particular case of Theorem   \[thm: netSubExist\ ]. Moreover, [ @FlJaJaTe:19 ] besides allowed for frictions such as transaction taxes and commissions in their existence result. 

 [ ^25 ]: Indeed, hark back that Example   \[eg: quasilogDualVal\ ] tells us that agent $ j$ ’s   at each utility level is a plus analogue transformation of $ \quasivalFn{j}$. The decision follows by Remark   \[rem: netSubDual\ ].
:2003].

[^21]: By contrast, [@KeCr:82] imposed a  condition at all pricx vectods. Imposkng condition at every money ebdowmtut leads to a strictuy strongvr condituon uhan Definition \[deh:fsub\]\[parb:ysub\] jk the 'resence of incpme effectv [@schlegel2018tradhne].

[^22]: Yact \[fac:subExist\] is a version of Theowem 1 in [@HwKoNiOsWe:11] for gxchamde edonomies and follows from Propositjon 4.6 in [@BaKl:19]. See [@KeCt:82] and [@GuSt:99] for earlier verdiond that assume that valuations are nonotone.

[^23]: Facg \[fac:subMaxDomain\] is a bersion of Theorem 2 in [@GuSt:99] and Theoxem 4 in [@yant2017mqxildl] that appoies rhen $\Feas{k}$ can be stsictly vontained in $\{0,1\}^I$, as weol as a version of Thxorem 7 in [@HaKoNiOsWe:11] for exchdnye economies. For sake od comkletetess, qe eivt a pdoof ov Fect \[fac:subMasDomain\] in Qppendix \[app:maxDomaim\]. Eye proof showa that tre statement would hold if $|J| \geq |I|$ and dgehts $k \not= i$ were restrixted to unit-demand vapuations—af in Theorem 2 in [@GuSt:99].

[^24]: [@FlJaJaTe:19] worked with a matcving judeo wve fonsidered equilibrium with personalized pricyhg, blt their argumentf also applu ln gxchange econooies wnfhkut personalized pgicing. Rowevwr, [@FlJaJaUe:19] onky required that each agent sees goods cs  dor a fixed endowmznt of goods and moneu. Our notion of  considexs a fjxed endowmfnt of gokas but a variabld ekdofment of money, and therefowe the exmstenee resulg of [@FlJaJwTe:19] is not strigdly a special case of Tkeorek \[thm:netSubFxist\]. Moreover, [@FlJaJaTe:19] also allowed for fricjiots vuch as cransagtion taxes and commissions iu their zxistevce result.

[^25]: Indeed, recall thae Example \[eg:quddilogDualVal\] tells uf thqt atent $j$’s  xt each utilitu level is a positice linear transforkatkkn of $\quasivalFu{l}$. Uhw conclusion fplluws bj Rxmark \[wam:netSubDual\].


:2003]. [^21]: By contrast, [@KeCr:82] imposed a all vectors. Imposing at every money stronger than Definition \[def:gsub\]\[part:gsub\] the presence of effects [@schlegel2018trading]. [^22]: Fact \[fac:subExist\] is version of Theorem 1 in [@HaKoNiOsWe:11] for exchange economies and follows from Proposition in [@BaKl:19]. See [@KeCr:82] and [@GuSt:99] for earlier versions that assume that valuations monotone. Fact is version of Theorem 2 in [@GuSt:99] and Theorem 4 in [@yang2017maximal] that applies when $\Feas{k}$ can strictly contained in $\{0,1\}^I$, as well as a of Theorem 7 in for exchange economies. For sake completeness, give a of \[fac:subMaxDomain\] Appendix \[app:maxDomain\]. The shows that the statement would hold if $|J| \geq |I|$ and agents $k \not= i$ were restricted unit-demand valuations—as 2 in [^24]: worked a matching model equilibrium with personalized pricing, but their in exchange economies without personalized pricing. However, [@FlJaJaTe:19] required that agent sees goods as for a endowment of goods and money. Our notion of a fixed endowment of goods but a variable endowment of money, and therefore the existence [@FlJaJaTe:19] is not strictly special case of \[thm:netSubExist\]. [@FlJaJaTe:19] allowed frictions such transaction taxes and commissions in their existence result. [^25]: Indeed, recall Example \[eg:quasilogDualVal\] tells us that agent $j$’s at each utility a linear transformation of The conclusion follows by \[rem:netSubDual\].
:2003].

[^21]: By contrast, [@KeCr:82] imposed a  conDition at alL pricE veCtoRs. impoSing Condition at eveRY monEy endowment leads to a strIctly StROngeR CoNditiOn than DEFiNITioN \[dEf:GsuB\]\[pARt:Gsub\] iN thE presenCe of income EffEcTs [@schlegel2018trADiNg].

[^22]: Fact \[fac:sUbEXist\] is a versiOn oF TheorEm 1 In [@HAkoNiOSWe:11] For exChange EConomiEs and follOwS From PrOPositioN 4.6 IN [@BAKl:19]. SEe [@KeCr:82] and [@GuSt:99] for eARlIEr versions that Assume ThAT vALUatIonS are monotoNe.

[^23]: fact \[fAC:subMaxdOmAIN\] Is a VErsion of TheorEm 2 in [@GuSt:99] and tHeoRem 4 in [@yAnG2017maXImal] thAt appLiES whEn $\Feas{k}$ can bE strIctly contAined iN $\{0,1\}^i$, as well AS a versiOn of ThEorEm 7 iN [@HaKOnioswe:11] fOr EXchANgE ecONomIes. For saKe Of ComplEtenESS, WE givE a pRoof Of FacT \[fac:subMaxDomAin\] In ApPEndIx \[app:MaxDoMain\]. thE prooF shows That tHe Statement would hOld iF $|J| \geq |I|$ and AgeNtS $k \nOt= I$ were REstricTed To uNit-demaNd valuaTIonS—aS IN thEorem 2 in [@GuSt:99].

[^24]: [@FlJaJaTE:19] wORKeD with a maTching MOdEl ANd considErEd eQuilIBRium wIth pERsOnalized PricinG, BuT tHeir argUmEnts alSo AppLy iN exchANge eConomiEs withouT persONalized pricing. hOwever, [@FlJaJaTE:19] OnLY ReQUireD thAt each agent Sees GOods As  foR A fIxeD EndowMent oF gOOdS And money. Our notion of  CoNsiderS a fixEd endowment of Goods but a vARIAble endoWmenT Of MOney, and therefoRe the Existence rESult of [@FljaJaTE:19] is not stRictly a spECIal case oF ThEorEm \[tHm:nETsuBExist\]. MoreoveR, [@fLJaJATE:19] also alLowEd for frIctIonS suCh aS tRansactioN taxes anD cOmMiSsIonS in thEIr existeNcE reSuLt.

[^25]: INdeed, REcall tHat ExAmplE \[eG:qUAsiLogDualvAl\] TELls uS tHaT ageNt $j$’S  aT each UtilITy lEvel is a Positive lIneAR traNsFoRmation Of $\quasivalFn{j}$. thE conclusioN fOllOws by REMArk \[rem:neTSubDual\].


:2003].

[^21]: By contras t, [@KeCr: 82] i mpo sed  a   co ndit ion at all pri c e ve ctors. Imposing condit ion a te very mo ney e ndowmen t  l e a dsto  a  st ri c tl y str ong er cond ition than  De fi nition \[def : gs ub\]\[part :gs ub\] in thepre senceof  in c ome e ffe cts [ @schle g el2018 trading]. 
[ ^22]:F act \[f a c :s ubEx ist\] is a versio n  o f  Theorem 1 in[@HaKo Ni O sW e : 11]  fo r exchange  e conom i es andf ol l o w s f r om Propositio n 4.6 in [@ B aKl :19].Se e [ @ KeCr:8 2] an d[ @Gu St:99] forearl ier versi ons th a t assum e  that v aluati ons  ar e mo n ot on e.
[ ^ 23] :  F act \[f ac:subMa xD om ain\]  isa v e rsio n o f Th eorem  2 in [@GuSt: 99]  and The orem4 in[@ya ng 2017m aximal ] tha tapplies when $\ Feas {k}$ canbest ric tl y con t ainedin$\{ 0,1\}^I $, as w e llas a ve rsion of Theorem 7  i n [@ HaKoNiOs We:11] fo re xchangeec ono mies . For s akeo fcomplete ness,w egi ve a pr oo f of F ac t \ [fa c:sub M axDo main\]  in Appe ndix\ [app:maxDomain \ ]. The proofs ho w s  t h at t hestatement w ould hold  if$ |J | \ g eq |I |$ an da ge n ts $k \not= i$ were  r estric ted t o unit-demand  valuation s — a s in The orem 2i n [@GuSt:99].
[^24 ]: [@FlJaJ a Te:19] w orked  with amatchingm o del andcon sid ere d e q u il ibrium with p e r sona li zed pri cin g, butthe irarg ume nt s also ap ply in e xc ha ng eeco nomie s  without  p ers on ali zed p r icing.  Howe ver,  [ @F l JaJ aTe:19] on l y  req ui re d th atea ch ag ents ees  goodsas  for a  fi x ed e nd ow ment of  goods and mo ne y. Our not io n o f  con s i ders a f ixed endowment of goods but a v ari ableendo wment ofmon ey, an d t h erefor e theexist en cer e sulto f  [ @Fl Ja JaTe:19] i s not  stri ct ly a  specia l case of Theorem\ [th m:netSubExist \].  Mor e o ve r,[ @F l JaJ aT e :19 ] also allowed fo r friction ss uc h as trans a cti on  taxesand com missi o ns in t heir exis tence res ul t.
[ ^ 25] : Indeed,recall t hat Examp l e \[e g :q uasil ogD ualVal \]  te lls u s that age nt $j $’s  a teach u tilit ylevel is  a positive linear tran sforma tionof$\quasiva lFn { j}$ . The con clus ion follow s b y R emark  \[ r em:ne tSub D ua l\] . 


:2003].

[^21]: By_contrast, [@KeCr:82]_imposed a  condition at_all price_vectors._Imposing condition_at_every money endowment_leads to a_strictly stronger condition than_Definition \[def:gsub\]\[part:gsub\] in the_presence_of income effects [@schlegel2018trading].

[^22]: Fact \[fac:subExist\] is a version of Theorem 1 in [@HaKoNiOsWe:11] for_exchange_economies and_follows_from_Proposition 4.6 in [@BaKl:19]. See_[@KeCr:82] and [@GuSt:99] for earlier_versions that_assume that valuations are monotone.

[^23]: Fact \[fac:subMaxDomain\] is a_version_of Theorem 2_in [@GuSt:99] and Theorem 4 in [@yang2017maximal] that applies_when $\Feas{k}$ can be strictly contained_in $\{0,1\}^I$, as_well_as_a version of Theorem_7 in [@HaKoNiOsWe:11] for exchange economies._For sake of completeness, we give_a proof of Fact \[fac:subMaxDomain\] in Appendix \[app:maxDomain\]. The_proof shows that the statement would_hold if $|J| \geq |I|$_and agents_$k \not= i$ were restricted_to unit-demand valuations—as_in Theorem_2 in [@GuSt:99].

[^24]:_[@FlJaJaTe:19] worked with a matching model_and considered equilibrium_with personalized pricing, but their arguments_also_apply in exchange_economies_without_personalized pricing._However, [@FlJaJaTe:19] only_required_that each_agent_sees goods as  for a fixed_endowment_of goods and money. Our notion of_ considers a fixed endowment_of_goods but a variable_endowment of money, and therefore_the existence result of [@FlJaJaTe:19] is_not strictly_a special_case of Theorem \[thm:netSubExist\]. Moreover, [@FlJaJaTe:19] also allowed for frictions such as_transaction taxes and commissions in their_existence result.

[^25]: Indeed, recall_that Example \[eg:quasilogDualVal\]_tells_us that agent_$j$’s_ at each_utility level is a positive linear transformation_of $\quasivalFn{j}$._The conclusion follows by Remark \[rem:netSubDual\].

