I'm not talking about spending as in the bare necessities like hookers & blow, i meant spending which could be avoided -- lending for profit, investing, "spending money to make money," the boring stuff. I simply don't see how molecular believes that Bitcoin is bound to disperse wealth. (Bitcoin: Champion of the poor.) If anything, once you discount extremes (one person owns every bitcoin), nothing encourages spending like inflation 

I believe the reasoning is that it would remove unfair advantages and wealth distribution to big banks (special loan conditions, cantillon effect etc.), plus the fact that middle-class families tend to have a larger percentage of their savings in inflation-sensitive fiat, whereas rich people can more easily diversify in the housing market, etc. .
If it wasn't for days like yesterday on MtGox, i'd have to dig deeper for proof of the opposite.

