After the sub-prime crisis, many studies of Minsky have been published. Ingeneral, Post Keynesian and Marxian Economics rather than Neo-classicalhave shown interest in Minsky. However, there are various opinions in thePost Keynesian interpretations on Minsky with regard to this crisis. Thus,they cause some confusion in understanding Minsky’s theory and message.The purpose of this paper is to clarify the essence of Minsky’s theory and therelationship between Minsky’s theory and the current crisis.This paper deals with three issues. The first is on the meaning and the roleof ‘euphoria’ in Minsky’s theory. The recent Post Keynesian researches arguethat the causes of this crisis are deregulations and financial innovations ratherthan euphoria or irrational exuberance, and that Minsky’s theory is based onsomething more than euphoria. The second is on the relationship betweenMinsky’s theory and the modern financial system. Kregel insists that thecurrent crisis differs from the traditional analysis of a Minsky crisis. The thirdis on the distinction between illiquidity and insolvency. Davidson argues thatthe recent crisis is due to an insolvency problem, and that Minsky’s theorycannot explain the crisis because it deals with a illiquidity problem. This paperexamines the validity of these Post Keynesian arguments.