Often they invest it, so that their net worth goes up rather than down, while perhaps supporting a company or cause they believe in. It's true that when you put

Often they invest it, so that their net worth goes up rather than down, while perhaps supporting a company or cause they believe in. It's true that when you put your money into something, it's no longer liquid. Your wealth is no longer liquid - but of course, someone now has that money instead, and it's liquid for them. This seemingly minor confusion happens in the article as well: But we live in a situation where very nearly all the wealth in the world seems to be tied up in destructive forms. If the money is fluid, why is it not able to simply flow from destructive forms to creative ones? He just switched from "wealth being tied up" - wealth is often quite illiquid - to money in the second sentence. Money is by definition (we all hope!) liquid. There are a lot of interesting issues raised in this article and the subsequent discussion, but it's all very muddled to me that I don't really know where to begin to respond.