According to Heiner Flassbeck, former head of UNCTAD, there are many factors pointing to a convergence in a normal cyclical downturn, deepening recession in Europe, complicated by potential hard Brexit--With host Paul Jay.
Heiner's main point is that monetarism won't work this time around and that fiscal spending will be required. I totally agree with him. He's right that if the deficit hawks get their way this time (so they can slash government benefits and privatize large swaths of the economy, we'll go into a deep recession/depression (austerity-caused depression).
I've been hoping that the Fed will not cower even though the Fed is primarily for the bankers. My thinking is that the Fed will realize that if the deficit hawk/privatizers get their way, the proverbial pitchforks will come out and even the Fed will be abolished. Therefore, the Fed will compromise and openly state that (for the sake of the fake "dual mandate") it opposes austerity and seeks massive fiscal spending to augment the Fed's rate and other policies and practices.
Of course, I do want the Fed replaced but not after another deep recession or depression.
BTW and while I'm on the subject in general, negative interest rates are being attacked because (for some unknown reason) the definition of negative interest rates has taken on only one aspect of negative interest rates. Right now, what's under attack is the idea that the banks would charge savers rather than pay those savers interest. That is one form of negative rates. The other form is to pay interest rather than charge it. Parties would be paid interest to borrow.
That second form would be monetary inflation that would translate into price inflation if supply were not able to keep pace. It would heat up the economy. It would reverse a deflationary recession or depression, which would be a good thing. The Fed or US Treasury would likely have to cover the banks reasonable profits on such loans or the commercial banks could employ an adjustable rate tied to price inflation. As the economy were to heat up, the banks would regain what they had paid out. The Fed could cover them via increasing reserves. I prefer the first method rather than adjustable rates, as some borrowers might be poor and not benefit enough by the heated economy to pay off the principal with interest owed.
My view is that our economy should be redesigned top to bottom so that the first beneficiaries of every economic endeavor would be the poorest. We should completely do away with all notions of trickle-down economics and focus solely on directly lifting the bottom. The entire economy would benefit immensely.