In the Jill Stein AMA there was this gem. This is my first R1 so I look forward to suggestions https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4ixbr5/i_am_jill_stein_green_party_candidate_for/d32aji8?context=3

The other commenters there have dealt with the bad science. Now its time for to talk about the bad econ.

The one thing I have learned is that economics is varied, and there are tons of different view points and theories.

But like any other field of science there are points of consensus where the vast majority of non-cranks agree. Sure, economists may disagree about the optimal tax policy or whatever -- but there are parameters to that debate.

Suffice it to say that I do not trust trickle down economics As far as I can tell "trickle down" is a pure straw man constructed out of a misunderstanding of models that predict incentive effects caused by taxation and other government policies.

What is the easiest way (lowest effort, highest payout) to make money, assuming anything is possible? Taking a large amount of money, putting it in the bank, and collecting interest on it. This is why people have projected that Trump would be richer today if he'd just invested the "small" million dollar loan his father gave him instead of running businesses into the ground.

Investment banking is a complex career path that takes a lot of effort and skill. By investing, the Trump clone would be hiring people with this skill set. This poster even demonstrated this. A sub-par investor (ie. Trump) was a lot less effective at generating wealth than the best in the market. Now, this can produce distributional impacts. But its hard to say that the work of investors is useless.

If you give rich people and big business tax cuts, they're going to take the investment option. This doesn't circulate money through the economy - instead if feeds the micro-economy that is the stock markets.

No. It feeds investment. There is a tradeoff between investment and consumption, and taxation that falls on investment can affect the amount of investment in the economy as a whole, by making investment less tempting, or in redirecting investment to lesser sources. A number of papers have found this result, however the exact magnitude of this effect is of dispute. See, for, instance this paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w13756

We present new data on effective corporate income tax rates in 85 countries in 2004. The data come from a survey, conducted jointly with PricewaterhouseCoopers, of all taxes imposed on "the same" standardized mid-size domestic firm. In a cross-section of countries, our estimates of the effective corporate tax rate have a large adverse impact on aggregate investment, FDI, and entrepreneurial activity. For example, a 10 percent increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces aggregate investment to GDP ratio by 2 percentage points. Corporate tax rates are also negatively correlated with growth, and positively correlated with the size of the informal economy. The results are robust to the inclusion of controls for other tax rates, quality of tax administration, security of property rights, level of economic development, regulation, inflation, and openness to trade.

Now when you take that money and give it to the poorer classes, that money circulates. Poorer people spend anywhere from 90-110% of what they make according to some economists, meaning that all of that money circulates back into the economy and feeds business.

This is pretty much vulgar Keynesianism. Increasing aggegrate demand can increase output in some cases, and in some models, yes, transferring money to people with higher marginal propensity to consume can increase demand. But this is only a factor when the economy is depressed. When an economy is near or at full employment the effect will be inflationary. This poster seems to be under the impression that consumer demand is a magic wand that always increases output.

Bonus on energy economics

The situation is that realistically, switching to green energy like solar and wind is really expensive - and overall nuclear is actually cheaper. The problem here for me is that nuclear isn't renewable.I'm going back to Saskatchewan again because we have the 2 largest and highest grade uranium mines in the world[3] , so again you can imagine that this was a controversial topic during our election. I also know however that our mines are starting to run dry, and if demand for uranium keeps increasing then we'll only run out faster. I know there's research into nuclear fission in Germany and it's looking promising, but until it's viable and safe I'd rather see us invest in permanent infrastructure then temporary fixes for our power grids.

"Renewable energy" is a as much of a political distinction, as an economic or physical one. The amounts of nuclear fuel available, could power the world's energy needs for generations and for a time frame that far exceeds the lifespan of any energy infrastructure. The link estimates that the amount of uranium reasonably extractable could provide 420 kWh of electricity per day per person for 10,000 years if used in fast breeder reactors.