Update This post is getting a few hits from non-regulars so I'll give a little background. My question was around this idea:
It seems to me that in the absence of price increases an increase in the money supply should theoretically increase the demand for durables but not non-durables. This is because without an increase in prices more money represents an increase in transitory income.
However, if there is no increase in the demand for non-durables there is no reason to raise their prices.
Therefore, the common neutrality argument has a chicken and the egg problem. Why does nominal demand for non-durables increase in the absence of price changes? Why does the price of non-durables change in the absence of an increase in nominal demand?
Unless the problem is answered then it would seem that money should increase the real demand for durables. This is at odds with the common neutrality result from theory.
In response to my question on the money supply commenter writes
If you're committed to market clearing as a modeling strategy then you need something like the Lucas islands model or some sort of stickiness to get short-term non-neutrality.
In Hume's account of long-run neutrality and short-run non-neutrality, the new money worked its way through the economy, pushing prices up as it went round and round. His story was credible because people didn't observe the increase in the monetary mass.
OK so this is the common assertion. However, and I recognize that I must be missing something, I don't see why observing the increase in the money supply matters.
For example, suppose I am the proprietor of a McDonald's. Tomorrow the money supply doubles. This is great. However, the nominal demand for my product is not going to double. In fact, the real demand will likely fall.
I won't experience a decrease in demand, but what I will experience, over time, is lots of my employees quiting to take jobs in construction because of the housing boom that just occurred.
How is it in my interest to raise prices? It won't be until I actually have to start paying my workers more. I have to wait for the increase in money to work its way to my cost structure before I begin to raise prices.
It seems to me this should be true for everyone whose product demand doesn't depend on the interest rate.
Products whose demand does depend on the interest rate will experience the opposite phenomenon. They will see a nominal and real increase in the demand for their product.
In other words an increase in money should shift demand towards durables and away from non-durables. But it should do it in a two-step fashion. First, real durable demand goes up, then wages and input prices go up, creating an effective real decline in demand for non-durables.
This doesn't depend on myopia, islands or any other non-market clearing devices. \
So I ask again, where do I have it wrong.