Can "Thrift" Unite Distributivists and Austrianists (and Confucians)?

Mark T. Mitchell asks, "[I]sn’t saving good? Isn’t living within one’s means financially wise?" — Thrifty Americans Threaten Recovery. Much of the rest of his article references the great E. F. Schumacher. My first thought was, does not the Austrian School of Economics view of Time Preference also promote thrift, and offer an excellent critique of Keynesian Economics' horrific Paradox of Thrift dogma?

John Zmirak, in The Fable of the Drones, wrote, "Keynesian economics... can be boiled down to this theory: That instead of looking for investment capital to the accumulated savings of the populace (deferred consumption), clever government policies (i.e., magic) can make it possible to fuel investment without any savings." Mr. Zmirak continued:

Of course, the people who’ll really pay for our spending spree will be our grandchildren, who’ll inherit the brain-bleeding debt we’ve run up, which both political parties are eagerly expanding as you read this. Isn’t it funny how the guy who invented this system, John Maynard Keynes, was gay? In those days before “domestic partners” could adopt, he was… immune to fears about grandchildren, and quipped once, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”

Of course, some people have been on board for 2,500 years: "We Chinese have a tradition. We do not like to waste money" — From Confucians to Consumers?