This is backward, actually. If the economy is working well then withholding consumption (i.e. saving) means that more goods are available for others to either consume or invest. The portion that ends up invested should result in higher future productivity and, in the absence of currency supply manipulation, decreasing prices (deflation), a natural reward for producing more than one consumes.
Only in an economy which is consuming capital—investing so little that productivity is actually decreasing—should prices increase over time. In that case we need more investment to bump up production—the investments don't need to be all that good to be better than the status quo, and anything with a positive return is superior to just waiting for prices to increase further. In the deflationary case, however, we should be more selective about where we invest. It's better for the economy to simply hold our funds in reserve rather than actively compete against more competent investors to expend resources—not just money, but the labor and material it represents—on ventures that will provide lower-than-average returns.
If we expand the currency supply to manufacture inflation and thus make it look like we need more investment when we actually don't then the net result is malinvestment, wasted resources, and a lower average rate of return. It's not good for the economy or the average citizen, but the extra transactions and higher nominal prices directly benefit the bankers and tax collectors with influence over monetary policy.