He doesn’t subjectively see it as purposeful action directed at increasing his future consumption, that is the definition of saving.
No, that is not what I said.
This seems to be in accordance with the views of Rothbard, as are mine.
As for the Hazlitt quotation, what is confusing? He is wrong.
Wait, so how is stockpiling consumer goods for several years different than “hoarding” cash?
So Hazlitt is just wrong? And they keep reprinting the book with no note or anything? Seems hard to believe.
Hazlitt was not an economist, I’m not saying that he has nothing worthwhile saying, just that it seems difficult to believe that he was infallible. It wouldn’t make sense to attach a note to the book of every author who made a mistake.
So how is stockipiling consumer goods for several years different than “hoarding” cash? 
It only decreases demand for consumer goods thereby cutting their prices. That does not make capital goods cheaper so does not mean investment in them. If it does increase investment at all it is infinety inferior to loaning to enterpreneurs through the banking system.
OK one of us is confused. Decreased demand for particular consumer goods causes the price of those consumer goods to fall, which in turn reduces the demand for the capital goods and natural resources required to make those consumer goods, which causes them to be transferred to other lines of production. It does tend to make the capital goods cheaper, but no that doesn’t cause an increase in investment in them, at least not for that particular use.
Here is the question I was trying to answer:
Hoarding gold is saving and does free up resources. Sure it’s by a small amount but that wasn’t the question. And yes it’s arguably inefficient compared to having a loan officer at a bank carefully weigh who the money should go to (depending on your definition of efficient), but that wasn’t the question either.
Okay, thanks for all of the replies guys. To ease my own confusion (lol), IN SUMMATION: the Austrian view of saving is deferred consumption right?
So, (going back to the original question), if John works at McDonalds and earns 50 dollars, and spends 40 dollars on food, but then refrains from using the 10 dollars and puts 5 in a McDonalds stock and 5 in his deposit warehouse/hoard/cash balance (he is not planning on buying anything now but just putting it there for the occasion he can buy something he likes), both of those are saving correct? Going off of this, does that mean that all of the goods that I have in my house (such as food, change, medicine, etc) that I bought but are not using right now means I am saving those items right?
I understand how the 5 dollars of McDonald’s stock helps the economy. It gives them money and resources to invest and grow their company, and represents actual savings because it is relinquished. I am confused as to how the 5 dollars I put in my deposit warehouse/hoard/cash balance helps the economy in the same way as the 5 dollars put into McDonald’s stock helps it. I have “saved”, but in essence I have not relinquished any resources. The 5 dollars is still there waiting for me. This is why I’m confused between the Rothbard quotes and such where he says money put in a deposit bank really isn’t “savings” (see quotes above, it would help me greatly if someone could explain this).
And if putting the 5 dollars in my deposit warehouse/cash balance/hoard equates to saving, then why does Rothbard and others always say saving and investment are equal? (“This is restricting his savings, so saving and investment are always equivalent”). Going off B) and C) being saving, this statement is impossible. Everyone will always have cash balances, so they will never be equal. Ever.
Am I missing something? I would be extremely gratefully to someone who can answer my questions.
Thanks as usual.
Well, that depends on the person in question and their subjective assesment.