Introduction Apart from Keynes, no other economists seem to have gained greatly from the economic slowdown of 2007-2009 as Hyman Minsky. The fall down of the second largest market in 2007 has been unanimously referred to as “Minsky instant,” and majority see the succeeding impact of the monetary model and great financial crisis as attesting Minsky’s economic volatility premise concerning financial disaster in capitalist markets (Ferri & Hyman 1992). Does minsky’s premise actually justify the crisis? Appreciation of Minsky’s logical input is welcome and justified. Basically, Minsky was an excellently intuitive economist regarding the tendency of capitalist markets in experiencing economically compelled explosions and developments, and the financial calamity has attested majority of his arguments (Justin 2008). That said, this essay argues that Minsky’s premise simply offers an incomplete and one-sided explanation of the existing financial crisis. To make the argument, the essay will look into opposite evaluations of the economic calamity by insightful theorists. On one side, Jan Kregel, an economist has contended the financial slow down is completely described by Minsky’s economic volatility premise (Charles 2007). On the other side is the modern Marxist perspective as explained by Foster and McChesney, the financial system of accumulation (FSA) perspective as explained by Kotz, and the organizational Keynesian perspective (Kotz 2009). These modern perspectives evaluate the economic calamity essentially differently, tracking its definitive causes back to financial growth within the actual market. The modern Marxist, FSA, and organizational Keynesian perspectives associate the causes of the financial slow down with the implementation of the liberal development framework in 1970s when the “Accord of Detroit” development framework was ditched (Jan 2007). Many argued that the 1970 neoliberal development strategy depended on increasing liability and asset price increases with a view of bridging the gap in cumulative demand generated by salary inactivation and increased earnings disparity. Minsky’s economic volatility theory illustrates how economies bridged this gap and satisfied it so much than might realistically have been anticipated. Evaluated from this viewpoint, the system explained in Minsky’s economic volatility theory is fundamental in comprehending the neo-liberal age, but it is part of a wider account. This neo-liberal framework was always not sustainable and thus causing a stop of its own treaty. The function of Minsky’s economic volatility theory is that of explaining why the neo-liberal framework continued advancing much longer than expected. Instability and regulation By extending full discretion to the Minsky system of economic novelty, monetary deregulation, regulatory freedom, and enhanced craving for monetary risks, policy architects such as Alan Greenspan increased the existence of the neo-liberal framework. However, this made the financial calamity greater and more sudden when monetary economy finally achieved its maximum values. Without monetary novelty and monetary deregulations the neo-liberal framework would have remained fixed in stagnation ten years before, but