Lower transaction costs lead to a more liquid market as the cost of entry and exit are both reduced. Every body wins except the middle men.

> Perhaps this statement should be restricted to just say the costs of investing in real estate would be reduced. Small difference I know, but I think it’s an important distinction.

It's especially important in this case because of the implications: One of the parties who "invest" in real estate is construction companies, who hold the real estate while they're building it. Lowering their costs makes them more profitable, so you get more construction -- which lowers housing costs by removing the realtor's vig and by the increase in the housing supply.

They seem like equivalent statements. What was the point of rephrasing?