Okay. I'm a poor communicator, so let's see if I can explain those better.
No, liquidity isn't important for investments. Liquidity is important for trade, and investment is not trade. It's perfectly acceptable for the transfer of long-term investments to take minutes, days, even months.
msbarnett suggested that currency is liquid partly because it cannot store value. I asserted that value stores do not need to be liquid, but it's a nice property for them to have. This is not strictly contrary to non-storing implying liquidity, so that was poor wording.
By currency storing a constant amount of value, I was referring to the fact that the money base is a concrete amount. It comes into existence in exchange for some value, and represents a debt equal to that value. Money is, in very real terms, a store of that predetermined value (convolved with the plausibility of collecting that debt), same as any debt marker.
No, liquidity isn't important for investments. Liquidity is important for trade, and investment is not trade. It's perfectly acceptable for the transfer of long-term investments to take minutes, days, even months.
msbarnett suggested that currency is liquid partly because it cannot store value. I asserted that value stores do not need to be liquid, but it's a nice property for them to have. This is not strictly contrary to non-storing implying liquidity, so that was poor wording.
By currency storing a constant amount of value, I was referring to the fact that the money base is a concrete amount. It comes into existence in exchange for some value, and represents a debt equal to that value. Money is, in very real terms, a store of that predetermined value (convolved with the plausibility of collecting that debt), same as any debt marker.