Seems to be a technical distinction without a difference though. Same amount of money, announced at the same time, awarded at the same ceremony, and just as prestigious. Sure, it’s an expansion of the original prize, but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that for anyone in the world, the awardee is for all practical purposes a Nobel prize winner.
This is true but orthogonal to my point. You talk about facts, my point was normative.
More precisely my speech act was performative: I'm leading by example, because I hope that others will copy my behaviour and speak up whenever somebody falsely calls winners of the Bank of the Swedish Empire a Nobel price winner. The best case outcome is that eventually the false prestige will be eroded away. (Compare with the Nobel Price for Literature and Peace, they are both widely regarded as jokes and nobody cares -- or worse in case of the Peace price.)
Anyway, sorry for this tangent, I don't want to derail the thread, the main subject of which is of great interest to me.
no one cares about any of those prizes except the institutions that care about them. you can't take the prestige off of an institutionally legitimated prize by talking at people (and you are talking at people not to)
The Nobel Prize awards outstanding contributions to humanity. The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences awards people pushing neoliberalism. Read up on the Mont Pelerin Society to learn more about it.
I at least know of one example (because the economists is so famose) of one recent (relatively) laureate that is definitely not a neo-liberal: Paul Keugman.
