Not to mention that if everyone stopped spending money tomorrow, then the economy would crash, millions of people would lose their job - meaning both personal savings and government resources are crippled. Which means the chances of you having enough money and a state pension you can live off by retirement age is significantly reduced.
While I'm not trying to argue that saving is a bad thing (clearly it's important to have some savings!), it's also fair to say that spending is good for the economy as well.
Well, that's just because the economy is predicated on the need to expand. One of those huge faulty premises that'll eventually need to change. (If we remove the requirement that an economy must expand, then the whole meaning of recession and depression changes, for instance.)
It comes to a balance. Yeah, if you spend - you help economy. But if we all end up in dept - it will crash economy too. So savings should be reasonable. That's what in theory government should regulate.
If people put their money in the bank or the market, then companies are spending the money instead of the consumers. The companies tend to spend the money on either capital goods, which still need to be produced just like consumer goods, or they spend the money on people who will in turn spend on consumer goods. No one is advocating hiding money under the mattress.
This actually happened to some extent in 2009 with automobiles. Purchases dropped from 16M/yr to 9M/yr, which was below the obsolescence rate of 11M/yr.
That's a poor response promoted by people who cannot grasp the basics of a 'hypothetical'.
Nobody is suggesting that everyone will stop spending tomorrow. However if an article discusses that people should save instead of spend, then the next logical discussion would be what happens if everyone takes that advice.
While I'm not trying to argue that saving is a bad thing (clearly it's important to have some savings!), it's also fair to say that spending is good for the economy as well.