Financial crises are considered a complex phenomenon and the diversity of reasons why they occur reflects this complexity. Since mid-2007, the global economy has had to overcome what is considered the deadliest global financial crisis ever documented accompanied by a recession, which had drawn comparisons with the Great Depression of 1929 (Eichengreen and O 'Rourke, 2009). As the crisis began to spread to many economies and countries, some of the largest and most esteemed banks and insurance companies declared bankruptcy or needed economic assistance. The United States came under enormous economic pressure in October 2008, when the Lehmann Brothers company declared bankruptcy. This led to stagnant credit flows and a deterioration in investor confidence, causing economies around the world to plunge into recession. This article aims to determine whether inequality was a cause of the global financial crisis or whether the cause is more conventional than inequality. The main explanations for the current global crisis have focused on deregulation, classical laissez-faire ideologies, low interest rates due to exceptionally lax monetary policy, "animal spirits" as well as moral hazard (Wisman , 2013). Deregulation contributed to increased banking concentration, due to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Banking concentration made the financial sector insignificant due to the creation of a few monopolized financial institutions that controlled more than half of the sector. The four largest banking institutions together held about 40 percent of total banking assets. Another conventionalist approach amidst the paper studies that linked inequalities and the financial crisis. This data indicates that rising inequality has contributed to household debt, which has pushed the poor into debt due to falling wages. Conversely, some have also argued that growing household debt is due to the actions of the rich. Maki and Palumbo (2001) used their study to argue that it is not the poor who seem to accumulate debt, but rather those at the top of the income distribution chain. Rajan (2010, 43) argued that growing income inequality occurred in the United States due to unequal access to higher education, which then led to a political burden in favor of a greater housing credit. This would then lead to distortions within the financial sector borrowing market. What does Rajan mean by political pressure??