Typically the housing narrative from the political left goes something like this: rich people are crowding into cities demanding luxury housing and that’s why everyone else is being priced out. According to this story, housing is expensive because it’s really the bricks and mortor equivalent of a new Maseratti. And what’s the best way to fix this problem? More regulation of course which includes fees and taxes off set the scourge of all the new housing for the rich. Well, maybe that narrative can change.

Paul Krugman the disgruntled old economics professor of lefties who tell this story has suggested that prices are up because “land use restrictions are in the way.”

And this is part of a broader national story. As Jason Furman, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, recently pointed out, national housing prices have risen much faster than construction costs since the 1990s, and land-use restrictions are the most likely culprit. Yes, this is an issue on which you don’t have to be a conservative to believe that we have too much regulation.

The New York Times for observant liberals is essentially like the Vatican newspaper for an adherent Roman Catholic; and Krugman’s column is like a Papal Bull. Krugman associating himself with the idea of deregulation might give liberals, who’s views are disastrous for housing policies in cities, permission to rethink their myths about expensive housing.

But to be fair and balanced, Krugman repeats in the first part of the column lots of stuff that liberals say about inequality and gentrification, squishy terms with no measure and vague definitions. The language of equity, I’ve suggested, has thoroughly corrupted how we talk about housing in Seattle, so much so that its created a cycle by which we desperately implement measures to lower prices by increasing costs and limiting supply.

But maybe liberals can have their inequality cake and eat it too since Krugman, who is an economist after all, is pointing out that the vaguely defined problems of housing inequality and gentrification are caused my too much regulation.

To be clear, in my view, inequality all by itself is an absurd “problem” to solve because quantitatively it suggests that everyone should earn the same money and live in the same house. Liberals and now, even socialists (it’s ok to be one now!), would howl at this characterization. But ask them just how much inequality we should have, like, “What’s the appropriate ratio of earnings that is normative for a manager and her employee?” and you’ll get answers all over the map. Equity either means equity or it doesn’t. For the left, equity is like the Trinity is to Catholics, something they believe in but have a hell of a time explaining.

Gentrification is the same way. Imagine a neighborhood that is almost monoracial quantitatively, say 90 percent one race. Ask your local liberal if that’s ok and wait for rhe answer. If they’re a wily sort they’ll ask, “Whaf race is the 90 percent?” If they aren’t they’ll respond, “No. That’s segregation.” Liberals believe in diversity except when it means changing that ratio of 9 to 1 to, say, 6 people of color to 4 white people. That’s not desegregation, that’s gentrification, a bad thing. If the neighborhood was white, and the ratio shifted, now that is called desegregation. Got it? Some neighborhoods, designated by mostly white liberals should remain “majority minority.”

Now if Krugman’s support of deregulation starts a liberal war against, oh let’s see, design review in the name of equality and to stop gentrification, well I guess I’d say, “OK.” Of course when your intellectual grounding is bad, it’s hard to make good policy. However, at this point, I’d hold my liberal colleagues coat while he did the right thing for the wrong reasons and started beating up regulation rather than the people who build housing in the name of equity for all.