‘Incisive,’ ‘scathing,’ ‘important,’ ‘scrupulously fair’

Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank based here in New York, talks with me about BROKE USA on CSPAN-2's "After Words."  It was taped in May on the convention floor of  Book Expo America and first aired on June 12th.  Click here to watch.

Also, a real thrill to see my name in a smart column by Joe Nocera, pictured, one of my favorite business writers.  In his weekly "Talking Business" column for The New York Times, Nocera describes BROKE as an "important, scathing book" and then quotes me as the fellow whose ideas on reforming our home lending system he finds most appealing.

Click here to read the column. 

Also, this wonderful review from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.   Highlights: "What makes BROKE, USA so readable is Rivlin's skill at telling a complex story through engaging characters...[an] incisive, important new expose."  I also appreciate that the reviewer, Karen R. Long, credits me for all those hundreds of hours I spent with those part of the poverty industry for their side of the story.  "Rivlin's work is scrupulously fair," Long writes.


Tagged as: , , , , , , , ,
Line Break
Line Break

Posted on June 14th, 2010 |

  • http://michaeljkelly.myopenid.com/ Mike Kelly

    Loved Joe's column and it's great to see him back in the Saturday Times!

  • http://twitter.com/Bakari45 Bakari

    I just watched your talk with Hearther MacDonald, and I really must say that I thought your responses to her criticism were far too conciliatory. MacDonald repeatedly defended the right of loan sharks to exploit a situation for personal economic gain. She never had to admit that it was a good practice or good thing to do. She just defended the right for them to get away with it.

    In other words, in her view, it’s wrong for the poor to take the lender’s money, but it never wrong for lender to give the loans, because hey no one is pushing the poor to take the money. What a lame argument.

    And each time she made that point, you first conceded to her argument but then you tried to double back and explain how she’s wrong.

    Mr. Rivilin, I haven’t read your book yet, and I will. But please, when you’re in interviews with these pro-exploitation advocates, don’t try to be conciliatory with them. Stand your ground and clearly point out the contradictions for what they are.

    I look forward to reading your book. But please, stand strong.

  • jadedor

    Yes, absolutely too many "concessions". It is a passionate subject - and one needs to be passionate when discussing it. Don't let "them" run all over you...