'Hoarding', which is identical to 'Saving', is the act of giving a 'future-you' what you do not need to consume today.

Aesop's fable: the Ant and the Grasshopper

There really is no difference economically between 'hoarding' and 'saving'. They are both words for a person's demand for money (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_for_money#section_1).

If you read in that wiki some of the demand for money is its transaction value and some is because of its value as an asset. Because of the fixed supply model for Bitcoin, there is more asset demand for Bitcoin compared to print-all-you-want fiat money.

The only difference in the terminology is that 'hoarding' is deemed to be bad but 'saving' is good. Both reflect demand for money, to project to future usage.

I've learned in my economics 101 class that a good economy is one that saves and spends equally...whatever that means.

Well, not quite true.  

Let's say an item I need is priced in dollars, and the price is $10.    So if I prefer to pay for that purchase in bitcoins, I then buy $10 worth of bitcoins.  It doesn't matter what the exchange rate is.   If BTC/USD is $10, then I need 1 BTC.   If BTC/USD is $2 then I need 5 BTC.  Either way, I am exchanging $10 of fiat to get $10 worth of bitcoins.  

So in that context, you are correct.  Hoarding does nothing for the bitcoin economy -- it doesn't hurt nor help.  

Now if I am a Bitcoin-related entrepreneur I might hold bitcoins.  And I might be looking to raise funds for my entrepreneurial ambitions.  
If there is hoarding of coins and the exchange rate rises quite a bit, my coins have more buying power as the result of others hoarding.

Thus hoarding helps the undercapitalized risk-taking entrepreneur who bought or mined bitcoins for speculation earlier.

At the same time, an increase in the exchange rate due simply to hoarding increases the risk of a price collapse.  If that demand isn't due to those bitcoins being used in commerce for buying and selling, then many hoarders have greater control over the exchange rate.  There was a nearly 30% drop in the exchange  from the October high to October low.   During that time there probably wasn't a 30% decrease in the use of bitcoins for commerce transactions so the bulk of that move was speculative buying and selling (mostly selling).     If there wasn't hoarding the price probably would never have reached $13, and thus the drop wouldn't have been as dramatic.

This exchange rate volatility, which can be attributed to speculative activity (hoarding) then actually does do something for the Bitcoin economy -- it hurts it, at least from a merchant's perspective.  A merchant doesn't want to see the profits from a sale vaporize because the currency rate took a turn south.  As a result the merchant will use a payment processor to convert those coins to fiat, which add costs (which  makes Bitcoin less favored for commerce) and also lessens the likelihood that the merchant in turn will use those coins for its purchases.

The thing is, ... there's no "right" way.  Bitcoins function as a store of value, and they will be held for speculative purposes by those willing to take that risk.

No matter what payment method is used, a merchant -- especially one starting with no customer base, has a very tall hill to climb.  That some investors are holding onto bitcoins should really be of little concern to that merchant.

Why would you troll like that?   You're not a dumb guy.  Why would you write that?

Be careful what you wish for, if bitcoin was not worth saving, by definition it would be worthless. Said another way, the less bitcoin savers you have, the less bitcoin is worth.

I must admit, I am "hoarding" the shit out of bitcoin.

regret=none 

Introducing a third party does not increase the value of bitcoin (he sold you his btc). Increasing the amount of transactions does not either. In this scenario, BTC would rise in value only if the person selling goods for BTC then saved (hoarded) them for future purchasing power.

I disagree that saving is bad for the reasons others have provided, but I will say it would be nice if there were more and better investment opportunities.  I don't like having a ton of BTC buried in my virtual backyard, but I don't know what else to do with them.  They've provided a better return than any fiat investment I've ever made.

There is nothing I want to buy with bitcoins that I can't buy with fiat. So why would I choose bitcoins over fiat when the former has a potential upside of a tin can under a lit stick of dynamite? Is the guy who spent 10,000BTC on a pizza thrilled he contributed to the "cause" or would he rather have ~$100,000 from an nominal investment of a few dollars?