Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. Not sure about Sweden but at least here (Spain) housing being bought for investment is much more of a problem than physical unavailability. And I don't mean it as a store of value: People (and companies) buy houses to rent them and have the rent payments pay for the mortgage…
The role of investors in the economy is ultimately to finance new development. It's easy to see how this works when an investor is the first owner. If it weren't for the initial investor with the required capital and/or credit to make the purchase, the housing likely wouldn't have been built in the first place. Now you may ask, what is the role of investors who buy up older properties? They provide valuable liquidity…
What you say amounts to "without rich people to pay every time they do some work poor people wouldn't be able to build houses". I don't buy it. I think it's perfectly possible to organise society without the driving force being "how can we as a society benefit this tiny cadre of super-rich people without pissing-off everyone else enough that they revolt".
Of course you need to wrest control from the people who can buy "mind control", and vote to allow corruption from the ruling party (cf UK parliament yesterday).
>All of this extra development spurred by investment money pouring in leads to lower rents for everyone //
The more we give to the rich the cheaper everything will be for us plebs, yeah, you're going to have to spend a bit more on your PR to press that idea home.