This article is really thin. Did he warn of impending meltdown,or did he write about how everything's just duckey? If he was sounding warnings that no one heeded, he may deserve an award.

Paul Krugman is a lefty who tries to pretend that a free lunch is possible.

He is a Keynesian and that will be why he has won this prize.

#1

Not of the "things just ducky" crowd.

From Wikipedia:

"In September, 2003, Krugman published a collection of his columns under the title, The Great Unraveling. Taken as a whole, it was a scathing attack on the Bush's administration's economic and foreign policies. His main argument was that the large deficits generated by the Bush administration—generated by decreasing taxes, increasing public spending, and fighting a war in Iraq — were in the long run unsustainable, and would eventually generate a major economic crisis."

On the other hand, my auntie has been saying the same and hasn't got her Nobel prize yet.

#2

Please provide one piece of writing by Krugman that indicates he thinks a free lunch is possible.

Time for the economist jokes.

"Economists have forecasted 9 out of the last 5 recessions."

Nobel took a hit when one was given to Al Gore, but old Al scared the public into making him a wealthier man.

#2 I read his Scotsman article a few years ago condemning tax cuts.

He is a Keynesian and Keynes is the foremost advocate of free lunch economics

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Krugman is generally considered a neo-Keynesian economist

In 2007, Krugman published The Conscience of a Liberal. The book is a history of wealth and income gaps in the US in the 20th century. The book documents that the gap between rich and poor declined greatly in mid-century, then widened in the last two decades to levels higher than those in the 1920s. Most economists (including Krugman) have regarded the late-20th century divergence as resulting largely from changes in technology and trade, but Krugman writes that government policies had played a much greater role both in reducing the gap in the 1930s through 1970s and in widening it in the 1980s through the present. He rebuked the Bush administration for policies that currently widen the gap between the rich and poor. Krugman proposed a "new New Deal", which included placing more emphasis on social and medical programs and less on national defense.[18] The book was praised in outlets such as The New York Review of Books,[19] but it was attacked by such organizations as the classical liberal Ludwig von Mises Institute, where it was argued to be overly political and virtually without ideologically-sympathetic[clarify] economic content.[20]

Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor." Klein's evidence is that Krugman has not spoken in favor of school vouchers, ending the minimum wage, or abolishing the FDA.[28]
In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Krugman came under criticism from supporters of Barack Obama, then a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, as a result of his stated preference for the policies of Hillary Clinton on health care and other issues"

#6

"Keynes is the foremost advocate of free lunch economics"

That's one opinion. Krugman talks of another "free lunch bunch":

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html