It's not a silly piece of trivia, it's a completely different thing than what people think of as the "Nobel Prize", which is the set of prizes established by Nobel's will, not an unrelated prize named after him to leech off the prestige associated with his name.
The reason people correctly view this as silly trivia is that it's hardly an "unrelated prize." The Nobel Foundation administers the Economics prize in the same manner as all the others, and the awards are given at the same ceremony. You are making it sound like it's entirely separate when it's not. I don't think the Nobel Foundation was trying to "leech off the prestige associated with his name."
AFAICT your take exists entirely to delegitimize economics as a science. Very childish and frustrating.
>> It's not a silly piece of trivia, it's a completely different thing than what people think of as the "Nobel Prize", which is the set of prizes established by Nobel's will, not an unrelated prize named after him to leech off the prestige associated with his name.
> AFAICT your take exists entirely to delegitimize economics as a science. Very childish and frustrating.
You know, real sciences don't need shiny medallions to make them legitimate. I'd say your comment delegitimizes economics more than the GP's.
The price was created, and is given, by the Nobel Foundation, which was set up by Nobel's will to carry out his last wish. If you go to the official page of the Nobel Prize the Prize in Economic Sciences is listed with the other Nobel Prizes. Its not one of the original Nobel Prizes, but claiming its a completely different thing is not true.
The price was created by Sweden's central bank, not the Nobel foundation. It's true that it's now considered a Nobel prize proper for most, but that's not to say that it originally wasn't the economics field leeching on the scientific prestige of Nobel. To be honest, it feels pretty on-brand for it. And fwiw, in Swedish, it's almost always clearly distinguished with a "in memory of Nobel" or similar in the surrounding context.
1. It was set up during the Central bank's 300-year anniversary.
2. Without the central banks establishment of the perpetual funding there's no prize. Your argument is purely semantic and ofc snarky like your entire comment history.
The way they presented the information, it is a silly bit of trivia. If there wanted to make some sort of argument about prestige or whatever, they could have made it. Dropping hints of some niche rabbit hole issue is not making a good-faith argument.
