A rose by any other name...

The massive conflict of interest in that set up is something I didn't know. It does greatly affect how I view it.

In terms of Medicine, that's different. Doctors aren't only financially driven. Bankers are.

Bankers can be financially driven, however, 'Central Bankers' [1] if you prefer that terminology, like those mentioned above, are generally not. :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

The people in the central bank, are bankers. Bankers have a personal motivation for choosing banking as a career.

I should have used more accurate language and said 'primary' instead of 'only'.

Again, would a government economist from a (hypothetical) administration dedicated to financial regulation and interest rate setting have a personal motivation for choosing economics as a career?

If no, why does it change anything that this administration is called "bank" for historical reasons rather than "federal interest rate administration"?

My assertion: Doctors are motivated by non-monetary reasons more so than economists. Doctors have the primary motivation to save lives/help people. If economists have the motivation to save lives/help people, that motivation isn't as strong as with doctors.

You can agree or not. To me it seems obvious this is true.

If you agree that the assertion is true, then 'doctors are more reliable to provide assessments that aren't based on self interest' would be a logical conclusion that would be drawn from the initial statement. Of course if you don't agree with that assertion (and it's hard to prove either way in a scientific manner, so I'm quick to admit it's just my perspective), then you obviously won't agree with the logical conclusion.

You changed your argument from (or at least, what I understood to be your argument):

1. Bankers are primarily interested by money, which includes employees of the Swedish central bank

2. There is a conflict of interest because the prize is funded by a bank

to:

3. Economists are more motivated by money than doctors.

1 and 2 are not relevant because the central bank is not a bank in any meaningful sense.

I fail to see how 3 has any impact on how one should view the economics prize. Could you elaborate?

That's a pretty strong claim. I know people in accounting because they like organizing, finance because they love analysis, quant because they love math, etc. I've also met anesthetists and cardiologists who chose their speciality for financial reasons.

I should have used more accurate language 'primarily driven'.

I've known a bunch of doctors (my sister's partner is a doctor). They tend to list helping others as their primary motivation, with fulfilling a childhood dream as another big one. Financial rewards for a specialty sure, but not for why they got into medicine.

I don't know many bankers. But I'd guess their primary motivation will be different. Sure they might enjoy something like analysis. But in the end of the day, you could be an analyst for a conservation NGO. Being a banking analyst attracts people with a specific set of financial desires.

It should be noted that the Central Bank doesn't select the laureates; they're selected by the same entity that Nobel himself chose to select the Physics and Chemistry awards, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.