Another fallacy on this thread: Builders don't provide housing. Sure, they'll build a house, but not with any occupants. They will always require a secondary market to sell into, that market being the purchaser - who either lives in it themselves, or as a landlord who gets others to live in it. It is they who provide housing.
It's the purchaser who's giving up as much value and taking on as much risk, as the builder is receiving and laying off. At the time of sale, it is thus merely a transfer of title with the exact same benefit to the economy.
With no end purchasers there'd be no building. Both builder and investor need to generate an economic return. Winston Churchill is talking out of his arse.....that's a politician talking, not someone schooled in Economics.
