It's often presented as this ace in the hole against those dummies that think Hayek talked like a liquidationist, and it can be presented in that light because we're usually talking about the 1930s. Preserving MV in the 1930s meant expansionary monetary policy until we got to the 38/39/40 range. Ergo, not liquidationist.
But after the 1930s, stable MV is a far cry from what we usually think of as anti-liquidationism. You can call it "good deflation" if you want to, but it's not a stretch at all to say that an advocate of stable MV is an adamant opponent of monetary expansion in recessions.
When a really harsh depression comes along, stable-MV can turn semi-expansionary. But that's about it.
So stable-MV, though not "liquidationism" in the specific context of the Great Depression, is not some kind of market monetarist kissing-cousin either.
Fellow Economists, Please Explain Sumner’s Analysis to Me
32 minutes ago