Remove the following things from your two comments:

  being white, I automatically get accused of unfairness)
  less educated people
  will I ever be able to word it without hurting people.
  So I've defaulted to thinking it's a prejudice from the listener. 

You imply a lot of ugly things about other people. It will get you ugly reactions to do that.

Are you just as critical when it's inversed? Speaking (and hearing) one's unpopular opinion is one the key elements to a successful democracy.

I have lots of unpopular/controversial opinions. I have found it enormously helpful to work on trying to express them without insulting my audience in the process. It can certainly be a hard row to hoe.

He asked for feedback. I gave it. I think I did so respectfully. If he sincerely hopes to learn to engage people effectively in meaty discussion about difficult topics, hopefully this will help him get there.

The reason you can't get along with people is because you write paragraphs with zero content and 80% insult. What particular economic proposition would you argue, if you were actually here to discuss economics rather than to troll pathetically?

You might have better luck if you work on not sounding so condescending.

Feels like that what I've tried for years. But your comment is the automatic response I get for any wording I use. So I've defaulted to thinking it's a prejudice from the listener. When is the last time you've discussed economy with someone who doesn't agree with you and didn't take it as condescending? and, bonus point, what did the guy say/not say?

I mean this in the friendliest spirit possible, but if literally everyone you meet feels you are condescending, perhaps some of them are right?

As it happens, I occasionally rub elbows with folks who aren't particularly highly educated. I don't have much trouble discussing stuff like economics with them, or with technically-educated and economically-ignorant people, or with my 17-year-old brother who has no real grounding in any of it. All it takes is patience and empathy. And it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing; I almost never agree with, say, my father on anything economic or political, but it's not condescending, even if it gets heated.

Reading your posts, the way write (and, I would bet, talk) comes off as if you think everybody is an idiot and/or is out to get you. I am not unsympathetic, because I certainly have my moments of jerkassery (plenty of 'em around here, and I'm not proud of them), but dude, look inward. I mean, even what I would bet you think is innocuous isn't: why not ask a question in good faith instead of imperiously assuming anybody gives a damn about your "bonus points"?

And the benighted-white-male thing is really, really not a good look, FWIW.

> economics with less educated people,

The "less educated people" is going to cause you problems. You probably need to find a different way to phrase that.

When you expect problems from your interactions with someone ('frontal collision with popular opinions'), you tend to find them. This is the sort of belief that can be self-reinforcing, almost like a "self-fulfilling prophecy."

It's best to avoid things like speculation as to motives or intelligence of others. It only leads to mean words.

Surround yourself with intelligent people who don't take an attack on their beliefs to be an attack on their person.

That sounds like a roundabout way of saying "filter bubble". Having to defend your opinions once in a while isn't all bad. If you have to surround yourself with people you find intelligent you might just be biasing your social circle towards people who agree with you a priori.

That is a definent concern, but I think it is possible to separate "intelligent" from "agrees with me".

For me, the biggest requirement to having an intelligent conversation is the ability to distinguish questions of fact, from questions of values. By far the most intelligent discussion group I have participated in, had me in the minority opinion in most discussions.

It's good to be able to distinguish different things. In my experience, however, reasonable people can disagree on questions of fact, on questions of value, or on both questions. It is an extremist position to require unanimity on either "facts" or "values".

This is a good point but I was not suggesting surrounding yourself with people who agree with you. I meant people who disagree with you without getting emotionally invested or spouting logical fallacies.

Let's hear these unpopular opinions of yours...