Codie Sanchez says money is the sword of the 21st Century. She wants to arm more Americans
Her journey began as a journalist along the U.S.-Mexico border and observed, "what happens when a border separates us."
Sanchez came to understand how deeply socioeconomics can divide people — and even threaten safety — after learning about the violence, particularly against women, along the border. Determined to shed light on these issues, she set her sights on journalism.
Then came a pivotal realization: "What would happen if more of us had more money? Because that, I think, is actually the ultimate freedom."
"I was a journalist and I realized pretty quickly, wait, if I want to make real change, the way I'm going to be able to do that is actually by being inside of the system as opposed to reporting on it," she said to Fox News Digital.
Her Wall Street journey began when she asked herself, "What if I just can get more wealth to multiple different people by building an asset management business? And so I started out in a company called Vanguard."
From there, she moved on to Goldman Sachs, State Street, and First Trust.
"What I realized along the way is wealth is just super concentrated in the hands of the few. And most people don't have financial literacy and so when I went to First Trust and started buying companies myself, I started to realize, 'Wait a second. I think what I'm doing is just helping more rich people get really rich,' which is cool. Money's great. I like it and I want everybody to have it. There's nothing wrong with being super-rich. I just think there should be more of us."
That led her to ask, "So that's when I started thinking, how can we teach more people how to get ownership as opposed to just making more money for those of us on Wall Street?"
About her organization, "Contrarian Thinking," Sanchez said, "Our goal is we teach people to become owners. We help people buy businesses. We're basically flipping the script."
"So instead, we teach people to buy local businesses, own part of their community and build a legacy," said Sanchez.
During the pandemic, Sanchez felt that freedoms were being "taken away" and was grateful to have the financial means to push back, and shared a personal experience her husband went through.
"My husband was at a company where that company was attempting to make him, even though he had a medical exemption, do something with his medical history that would have been a direct violation of what the doctor said. And he was a Navy SEAL. And so he didn't have a lot of cash at the time. And they were really pressuring him."
The moment underscored the power of financial security.
"A normal person might be scared of getting fired, you know, or like you have family you have to take care of, so just do the thing that somebody on high is telling you to do — whatever that thing is. And thankfully, I had been in business for a while, and so I pushed back and was like, get my attorney on the line with these guys and I will happily chat with anybody in the company about how this is completely inappropriate, and we'll go to war if we need to. And it was in that moment I realized, oh, I can push back on the system because I have money. He didn't. And so they were gonna take advantage of that."
Sanchez's social media presence skyrocketed during the coronavirus pandemic — something she said she had never expected, having never planned to be online. Today, she has millions of followers across platforms, where she shares advice on finances, business, and life.
Sanchez started a newsletter during the pandemic in order to encourage critical thinking during the uncertain time of the pandemic. "I started writing a newsletter, basically first talking about, let's have critical thinking."
"I was like, maybe people can't think critically because they're so scared, because they have no resources. So they're just full. Then I thought, well, let's make people richer so maybe they can push back a little bit. It's easier to have a spine when you got a sword. And in our 21st century economy, the sword is money."
Sanchez has also put her philosophy into print.
"If you want to figure out how to become an owner, if you want to learn how to get income-producing assets, I wrote the book to do it. It's called Main Street Millionaire," she said.
Through her book, newsletter, and Contrarian Thinking, Sanchez continues to share strategies to help people gain ownership, achieve financial independence, and create lasting legacies.
Watch Codie Sanchez appear on "Fox & Friends" on 8/18 at 6:50 AM ET.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-Washington Post fact checker hits ‘absentee owner' Bezos, tells him to commit to saving paper or sell it
The Washington Post is a sinking ship with a captain missing in action. And according to its now-former fact-checker, that missing captain is its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos. "He has to be committed to it. If he's not committed to it, he should find someone else to own it," Glenn Kessler told Fox News Digital. "I feel like he was kind of committed to it. And then he's kind of an absentee owner, and he shouldn't be because it's, you know, one of the prime assets of American journalism." Kessler left the Post in July after more than 27 years at the paper — and his final years there were not the best. "What's so saddening is that five years ago, I would not have imagined The Washington Post would be in this state," Kessler said. Kessler never considered leaving the Post until he was presented with the buyout offer, which he accepted. The Post has been financially bleeding, so much so that it reportedly was on pace to lose at least $77 million in 2024. The buyouts had targeted the most veteran staffers, aiming to cut costs and ward off layoffs for the time being. The famed fact-checker was among several high-profile journalists and columnists who have left the paper in recent months, many of whom took issue with decisions and editorial changes Bezos himself had ordered. Kessler compared the Post to "being on the Titanic after it struck an iceberg — drifting aimlessly as it sank, with not enough lifeboats for everyone" in a piece he wrote on his newly-launched Substack account. "They have to have a vision of where they want to go. And I've not seen that vision yet. Or if there is a vision, it's not been clearly articulated," Kessler said. "It's gonna be a really rocky period in the news business in the next five to ten years. And the Post needs to be prepared for that. And I kind of feel like they've lost a lot of, you know, important sailors and captains to keep the ship going. So they're gonna have to make do with less." Bezos has been the target of intense blowback by liberals, who've accused him of bending the knee to President Donald Trump based on actions that have rocked the paper. First was his decision in October to halt the planned endorsement of then-Vice President Kamala Harris just days before the presidential election. Then, in February, he launched a new mission for the editorial pages to promote "personal liberties and free markets," vowing to not publish any pieces that go against those principles. Both instances sparked rebellion among the paper's liberal readers, leading to the cancellation of hundreds of thousands of subscriptions. Several staffers also resigned in protest. But Kessler wasn't always a Bezos critic. He credited the Amazon founder for saving the Post when he bought it in 2013. "Before Bezos bought the newspaper, it was in really bad shape," he told Fox News Digital. "People forget how, you know, because the Graham family didn't really have the resources to keep it going in the new era. And there had been a bunch of buyouts and people were asked to leave. So it had been a pretty grim period then." Things at the Post were souring so much so that Kessler himself had been interviewing for a different job outside the paper. That was until he was offered The Fact Checker stint in 2011, which he accepted, thinking that if the ship went down, he himself could stay afloat with his own "brand." "But then Bezos bought the paper, and he invested a lot of money in the paper," Kessler said. "So the size of the staff doubled. The number of foreign bureaus probably went up [by] at least a third. The resources devoted to engineering support surged, so the web pages started loading faster, and we could do fantastic graphics. There was investment in video… And you really felt like the Post was going places, and it was actually producing better journalism at any point in the time I had worked at the Post." "And now it is just… it's like it hit an iceberg, and it's kind of drifting there, and I don't think there's a plan to rescue it. Or at least a plan to, you know, turn the ship around and get it moving in the direction it was." Kessler blamed management for being "a little dazzled" by the traffic spike that came during the first Trump administration, reaching levels "almost equal" to the Post's top rival, The New York Times. But then, unlike the Times, the Post failed to capitalize on its new readers by not expanding its portfolio. "I've sat in many meetings and had many discussions and heard lots of speeches. I still have no idea what they're trying to do," Kessler said of his former bosses. "It vaguely seems to say we're gonna appeal [to] the people… who don't really care about the news. And we're gonna provide products that would allow them to read The Washington Post and find out information they need to know," he said. "And the problem, as I wrote in my piece, is that that's what The New York Times has been doing for ten years. They have 10 million subscribers, but a large chunk of that are people that don't get the core news product," Kessler continued. "They get the recipes, they get The Athletic — the sports section, they get product recommendations, they get the games, they play Wordle." He said the Post is stuck with "the Avis problem," citing the car rental company's old ads that claimed "We try harder," alluding to the reality it was always in the shadow of Hertz, a dynamic similar to the Gray Lady. "The Washington Post has always been No. 2. It's never had the same size circulation as the Times. I would argue news coverage was better, but maybe I was biased about that," Kessler conceded to Fox News Digital. "But now in this fragmented marketplace, people have to make a choice. What Substacks am I going to subscribe to? What newsletters am I gonna get? What networks am I going to watch? 'Oh, I need one newspaper. I'll be willing to spend money on one newspaper,' and the default is always going to be, unfortunately, The New York Times." He continued, "It's a broader product. It has better arts coverage, theater coverage. I've never gotten an understanding of how the Post was going to combat that problem. And it sounded like the solution was, 'Oh, we're going to be like a mini-me New York Times with things to appeal to people that don't follow news.' Well, they already get that in The New York Times." The Post has scrapped an initiative launched last year dubbed "WP Ventures," meant to attract social media users. However, the paper appears to already be pivoting with Tuesday's announcement of former Axios executive editor and former Post reporter, Sara Kehaulani Goo, returning as its president of Creator Network — a new position Goo says will be "creating personality-driven content" and help provide advertisers "access" to a new audience driven by creators. The Times and the rise of new media weren't the only obstacles facing the Post. "Midway through my journalism career, I started saying, 'I'm working for a dinosaur.' And AI is quite possibly the meteorite that will kill off the last of the dinosaurs," Kessler said to Fox News Digital. "I'm greatly concerned about what AI is gonna do, because AI is gonna kill search. And search was how people often found our news articles." "The statistics I had seen was that four or five years ago, every 100 searches on Google yielded six clicks on a news site. Now it's about every 100 searches yields two clicks on the news site. When people use AI, a thousand searches result in one click," he continued. "So it's a dramatic difference. And if I were running a news organization, at this point, I don't know quite what I would do about that. So it's a bad time to be running a new organization. I do have sympathy for the situation that [Washington Post publisher and CEO] Will Lewis and [Washington Post executive editor] Matt Murray find themselves in right now. I just question whether or not they really have figured out what to do." Goo said in her announcement that "we're going to be infusing AI with everything that we do to help us maximize efficiency and scale." But the buck ultimately stops with Bezos, according to Kessler. "The Post was really at its high point [after Bezos' purchase]— the amount of stories we're producing, the quality of the stories was really significant. And then, traffic surged when Trump got elected and there was so much hunger and interest in the news we were producing. We kind of lost our way after that," Kessler said. "And not only lost our way, we started losing oodles of money. A hundred million dollars one year, I think the last number I saw [in] 2023 was $77 million… I think even for a person as rich as Jeff Bezos, that counts as real money." "And I have gotten the sense that he's a bit of an absentee owner. He's had other distractions, and he's committed more to some of his other enterprises, such as a space company, than he is to The Washington Post, which is really just a tiny part of his business investments. And maybe, I don't know, I hate to speculate, maybe you thought he gave us his best shot, and we blew it, and now we've got it muddled through," he added. A spokesperson for The Washington Post told Fox News Digital, "The Washington Post is reinventing itself to be a trusted news source for all Americans. That means working hard each day to publish the most accurate news, alongside opinions that resonate across the nation."
Vogue
36 minutes ago
- Vogue
Want to Get a Facelift Abroad? You Might Need a Plastic Surgery Broker
Those on their facelift journey are now at a crossroads. With everyone's social feeds flooded with seemingly perfect results from international surgeons (Guadalajara facelift TikTok is just one of the many tempting reasons to book a trip to Mexico), many are asking themselves if they would go to another country for a procedure at half the cost and possibly better results. Medical tourism only continues to rise. According to a report done by Fortune Business Insights, the global medical tourism market is projected to grow from its current worth of $38.2 billion to $162.8 billion by 2032. Studies show that cosmetic and dental surgeries in countries such as Mexico, Thailand, and Hungary cost a fraction (anywhere from 25% to 50% to be exact) of what those same procedures might cost here in the US. But patients aren't letting costs be the only factor driving their decisions to seek help outside the States. They're letting incredible results pique their interests as well. 'Clients today are far more educated and outcome-focused,' Melinda Farina, founder of Beauty Brokers Inc., tells Vogue. 'They've seen global results, and they're asking for specific surgeons, not just destinations.' Farina, whose consulting firm connects patients with its network of plastic surgeons, says that top international destinations for her clients include Turkey, Italy, Brazil, and Colombia. She explains that the quality of surgical work in the US can sometimes be disproportionate to the inflated prices of these surgeries, while surgeons abroad are delivering more nuanced and sophisticated results. 'What people don't realize is that these international surgeons aren't operating in 'discount' markets; many are setting new standards in technique and outcome,' she says. 'Some of the most sophisticated work in facial and body aesthetics is happening outside the US, and our clients know it.' The impulsive answer would be, 'Hell yes, let's go abroad for a facelift.' But after the initial high wears off and you get down to the logistics, you'll realize that you have the extra homework of researching if a surgeon in another country is the right fit. This is where a plastic surgery broker may come in handy. How does hiring a plastic surgery broker work? According to Joshua Rosenberg, MD, a board-certified facial plastic surgeon at Mount Sinai, there are a few different kinds of plastic surgery brokers. You can turn to commercial platforms that charge patients for access to their network of vetted surgeons. There are brokers who are employed by health systems or embassies that assist patients with medical care abroad. Then there are the private plastic surgery brokers that typically work on a fee basis, charging patients and/or plastic surgeons for their services as a middleman.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
We still aren't sure what's going on with tariffs and inflation — or what will happen next
Recent economic data continue to give mixed signals on how much tariffs are affecting prices, leaving Wall Street conflicted on who is paying for what. While companies may be absorbing much of the tariff costs for now, it's not clear how much longer they can keep it up and how much consumers will be able to shoulder later. Months after President Donald Trump launched his trade war, economic data continue to give mixed signals on how much tariffs are affecting prices in the U.S. While the consumer price index has ticked higher, it has also consistently come in below forecasts, though the latest reading on producer prices surprised to the upside. Certain sectors heavily exposed to tariffs have seen spikes, but July data showed less upward price pressure on some goods prices and more pressure on some services. 'Despite this firmness, the tariff pass-through effect on consumer prices arguably has been less bad than expected so far,' JPMorgan economists led by Michael Feroli said in a note on Friday. According to the bank, one potential explanation for the muted inflation numbers is that firms are eating the tariff cost at the expense of their profit margins, which are currently wide by historical standards and can accommodate the added costs without harming capital or operating budgets. Other explanations include the delayed effects of duties on prices as companies draw down pre-tariff inventories, the seasonality of prices as inflation during the summer tends to be softer than in the winter, and tariff costs being passed though more via services rather than goods, JPMorgan added. Yet another explanation could be that the tariff rates importers are actually paying are far below the headline numbers. A recent Barclays report found that the weighted-average levy in May was just 9% versus the bank's estimate for 12%. That's because demand shifted away from countries with higher tariffs while more than half of U.S. imports that month were duty-free. Despite higher rates on Canada, for example, they don't apply to goods covered under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. 'The real surprise in the U.S. economy's resilience lies not in its reaction to tariffs but that the rise in the effective tariff rate has been more modest than commonly thought,' the report said. To be sure, Barclays said the weighted-average rate has edged up to 10% today and predicted it will eventually settle at around 15%, as more products like pharmaceuticals are expected to get hit with levies and as loopholes close. Businesses vs. consumers Citi Research still doesn't see much evidence of broad-based price pressure from tariffs and attributed the recent uptick in services to one-time anomalies, such as the 5.8% jump in portfolio management fees due to the rally in asset prices. Citi also doesn't expect consumers to get hit with big price hikes in the future, even as more levies are expected to roll out. 'Softer demand means firms will have difficulty passing tariff costs on to consumers,' chief US economist Andrew Hollenhorst said in a note. 'While some firms might still attempt to slowly increase prices in coming months, the experience so far suggests these increases will be modest in size. This should reduce concerns about upside risk to inflation and increase concerns that decreased profit margins will cause firms to pullback on hiring.' By contrast, Goldman Sachs predicted consumers will pay most of the tariff costs. As of June, they had absorbed 22%, but that figure should jump to 67% by October if the pattern seen in early rounds of Trump's trade actions continues. For businesses, the burden will shrink from 64% down to 8%, while foreign suppliers will see an uptick from 14% to 25% of the tariff impact. Unraveling the mystery over what tariffs are doing—or not doing—to inflation has major implications for the Federal Reserve, which is trying to balance both sides of its dual mandate. Tariffs have kept inflation stubbornly above the Fed's 2% target, causing policymakers to hold off on rate cuts. But weakness in jobs data have raised alarms on employment, fueling demands for easing. 'The evidence so far is that almost all of the costs of tariffs are being born by domestic firms,' Citi's Hollenhorst wrote. 'The lack of pass-through should reduce lingering Fed official inflation concerns and allow for a series of rate cuts beginning in September. If anything markets are underpricing the potential for faster and/or deeper cuts.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
