Brad means "Bubba did OK"

NAFTA is nowhere.The 2002-2007 bilateral-trade "China shock" is simply not a terribly big deal for the country as a whole: employment in traditionally-male blue-collar occupations was flat. A big deal for places that found their manufactures competing with new imports from China, yes. But not for blue-collar traditionally-male employment in the country as a whole.For the country as a whole, it is aggregate demand—2001-3 recession, weak recovery, 2007-9 catastrophe, and then superweak recovery—with a supporting role for technology-and-preferences:

He is making a point that aside from lil Bush, the economy can be considered stationary across recessions. The hidden point is that Bubba, the administration Brad was in did it right. Thus, Brad kills two birds with one stone, he identifies Bubba as a good economist, OK agreed. Then he gets to ignore secstags, go back to the one cycle theory, 'This time is different'.

I claim Bubba did identify something, but it was too late for Bubba to stop the tide, the inevitable monetary regime change. Then, adding in the long pole to the tent, we see that the one cycles are balanced around the long term secstags, functioning over increasing headwinds.

This thing:

His [Hicks]  second major contribution is his invention of what is called the IS-LM model

Is the S/L vs delta S/L chart that maximized the second derivative, liquidity. We try to make this optimum causing the system to appear linear in a created axis of symmetry,  the actual waiting in line between savings and loan queues.  But that chart is thus, sparse, and in the solution will be a superposition of a small set of individual solutions (more than one checkout stand with an items per basket quant).

When we add the secstags 'checkout counter', folks betting the secstags, then the famous Hicksonian adjustment happens on the long pole, in semi regular fashion, a generational change.  The problem is we are finite, we can never get close to the infinitely precise balance. So the Hicksonisn jump bounces on either side of the liquidity peak in our to curved chart, and it needs correcting like any other line of symmetry in the economy.

We need to correct it half as much, twice as often to meet the new Moore Law conditions, and avoid hedging by the shadow bankers. Every 15 years is great.