When you invest money it disappears from your control and you get a piece of paper that says you own shares in an entity.
If you invest in $AMZN, much less so.
But that's only because there are other people who will happily move money into your control to get that share from you. Doesn't change the fact that the money you spent acquiring it has moved out of your control onward in the economy.
Liquidity doesn't matter? Huh.
That's a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting to be awarded, if true.
> Accrue more money pretty much indefinitely?
You changed the subject. Wealth wasn't it.
Yes, a lot of economic activity is predicated on the availability of investment capital, but only investing in already-successful firms doesn't generate new economic activity. And static, unused real estate generates basically none at all.