Sure it does. If I buy good A for $X, I must value having good A a least _slightly_ more than having $X in my pocket. Similarly, the seller values $X in his pocket more than having good A in his inventory.
Hence, we have completed a transaction where the wealth of both parties has increased. This is the essence of why capitalism works.
People who say "In this economy we need more money being spent" are not capitalists advocating efficient trade, they're Keynesians or something.
If someone thought he would benefit from a purchase, he would do it without encouragement. So what meaning can the encouragement to spend have...?
Conceivably it could mean (but this guy did not mean) that there's lower hanging fruit to be found by looking for more trades that should happen but aren't than by producing more. But it's far from obvious how/why that would be true "in this economy". In economic slowdowns, you need to make more stuff, not divvy up the too-little stuff more perfectly. It's when the economy is booming and production is very high that there might more plausibly be a neglect of the efficiency of trading.
Keynesians are capitalists and I've never heard of them being opposed to efficient trade.
One thing that inspires people to spend money is feeling that they won't be laid off. People do not have that feeling right now. Should we just wait for that to happen? Producing while people aren't buying leads to inventory gluts which leads to deflation.