Completely static builder implementation
I'm afraid and sorry to say that your code does not make a lot of sense.

A Builder is supposed to build an object. As such it replaces the constructor. That builders allow for chained method calls using return this is some syntactic sugar that's frequently used for builders. However, return this doesn't turn an arbitrary class into a Builder.

A Builder is used when it adds value over a regular constructor call. There are various reasons why one would introduce a Builder, to name a few:


The constructor call would be too complex or confusing.
A set of similar objects shall be created which differ in only a few elements.
To allow multiple method calls until the object is created while still retaining immutability for the final object.


The general expectation is that neither Builders nor classes created by them are Singletons, and that Builders and the constructed objects are independent of each other, that is, that they do not have side effects on each other.
In other words, one can create two Builders, and those two Builders would have nothing in common but being Builders for the same class. And then call build() on each of them, and end up with two different objects of possibly the same class but otherwise unrelated with each other.

The source of this is the massive over-use of static on non-final fields. Using static for fields without making them final is almost always a mistake.

More confusing things are


static Setters
Setters which have side effects on something else, something seemingly unrelated


Also, have you ever thought of the testability of the code in question?