The actual reason why is that everyone was expecting Hillary to win and she had vowed to "end private prisons."
So everyone was calculating in a 90% or whatever chance Hillary wins, with some percentage chance she actually fulfilled her promise. Instead they got a 100% chance they would stay around for 4 years and probably get a tax cut. Pretty big adjustment is appropriate.
(Also old 2016 articles about Hillary are so quaint. They even mention Obama closing Guantanamo lmao)
Lots of stocks did. Everyone knew he would do things that benefit the large corpos (lower taxes, slash environmental regulation, remove labour rights). But then of course he got to claim the economy was doing good since American media thinks "stock market" = "the economy"
Yeah the guy who was going to pass permanent corporate tax cuts and temporary individual tax cuts, funded by chaining individual tax brackets so taxes go up for individuals after 10 years, won. That's great for corporate profits. And great for the 10% who own 90% of stocks.
It's horrible tax policy and detrimental to the majority of Americans but it absolutely should make stocks increase.
Well you see, it introduces efficiencies because there will competition and incentives for CEOs to seek innovative, private industry knowledge and ok I'm done /s.
Oh god.......you just gave me the worst idea ever. DUAL police/prison systems. With competing jails. Like two seperate police forces in every city......but whoever arrests you determines which jail you go to.
If I had fewer scruples, I'd find out who the construction contracts for new prisons go to and invest all in. This guy is gonna get in and imprison a whole lot of people. Like a lot a lot.