Ha!
"as a matter of fact yes, I am an economist"
That would certainly be very effective.
Either play on the "battle of wits" mode, return the hostility, do your damnedest to humiliate the other in a way that >makes you look good rather than petty, or try to bring the hostile arguer... well, not to your side, but to a neutral basis of >discussion.
I will have to practice this more, I think the third alternative is just to leave the discussion because the other person is just locked.
That would certainly be very effective.
The typical response to this is flat incredulity. This is particularly effective if your screen-name is not your actual name, and doubly so if you are the least bit reluctant to reveal your identity.
Especially in the comments of political articles or about economic issues I find myself arguing with people who question my authority about a topic rather than refute my arguments.
----
Examples may be:
1:
Me: I think money printing by the Fed will cause inflation if they continue like this.
Random commenter: Are you an economist?
Me: I am not, but it's not relevant.
Random commenter: Ok, so you are clueless.
2:
Me: The current strategy to fight terror is not working because ISIS is growing.
Random commenter: What would you do to stop terrorism?
Me: I have an idea of what I would do, but it's not relevant because I'm not an expert, but do you think the current strategy is working?
Random commenter: So you don't know what you are talking about.
----
It is not about my opinions above, or even if I am right or not, I would gladly change my opinion after a debate, but I think that I am being disqualified unfairly.
If I am right, how should I answer or continue these conversations?