Either way, for the most part those things sold will not be produced or cared for if someone wasn’t going to buy them. Whether perishable items, most of which help preserve some more durable form of wealth, like human capital, for instance. Or durable forms of wealth are produced that will last beyond the current time period. It is the “spending” that encourages the increased production and preservation of wealth.
This statement implies that Mom and Daughter best freakin’ partner in crime ever shirt. However, whenever money is spent, the money still exists in the hands of the recipient of that spending. Then when that person spends that money they received, again, it does not disappear, it is transferred to the recipient of that spending etc. At the end of all that spending, at the end of the given time period, the money used will still exist and can be considered as savings, in someone’s pocket.
So on either front, if the goal is to increase savings, and increase the net production of wealth, “not spending” is the wrong advice. “Not spending” will not increase the savings that is the preservation of investment, and it will likely not increase the net production of wealth, in fact it is more likely to decrease both. In the macro economy, “not spending” is more likely to have negative effect on the production of wealth and standard of living, than a positive one.