The mandatory disclosure system for energy efficiency will include more buildings Credit:Louise Kennerley One might have expected The Economist to join the pile on. But, no. "There is an enormous amount to learn from Marx," the article began. "Indeed, much of what Marx said seems to become more relevant by the day. "The essence of his argument is that the capitalist class consists not of wealth creators but of rent seekers – people who are skilled at expropriating other people's work and presenting it as their own." With great sadness, The Economist goes on to find much evidence to support this, including the super-size of executive pay packets and the trend in politicians turning "gamekeeper to poacher" on retirement.

Several of Marx's other predictions, including the increasing concentration of market power among a few firms and the rise of a powerful and crisis-prone finance sector, are also standing the test of time. But The Economist must, however, draw the line at Marx's characterisation of capitalism's inevitable "immiseration" of the poor, pointing to the success of the welfare state and minimum wage in protecting workers. Overall, concludes The Economist, Marx was good at identifying the "disease" at the heart of modern capitalism, but he did not, in his advocacy of a mass revolution by the workers, identify an appropriate cure. At which point, your scribe felt safe to take another sip of one's Earl Grey and conclude that not all had gone topsy-turvy in this world. But it remains true that one no longer needs to be a communist to observe that modern capitalism is in crisis. It is increasingly clear that capitalism, as a system for organising economies by liberating individuals to make private transactions, is not a system that lends itself to increasing equality, as was once hoped. The post-World War II era of greater equality now stands as the aberration, giving way to rising inequality as the central tendency.

The selfish impulse at the heart of capitalism may still be the most powerful motivator to action, to progress and to innovation, known to human kind. But it is also proving a baser instinct, in need of greater external restraints. Increasingly, the rent-seeking and cronyism once dismissed as the purview of the Third World is on display in the world's biggest economies, most notably the United States where even the most innovative tech companies have amassed huge market power. At home, in the space of just one week, we witness big bank bosses colluding to fight a modest new levy to bolster the public purse; the strange spectacle of the greatest Treasury secretary of the past few decades turned into a bank spokesman; and the exposure of a tax evasion racket allegedly led by the son of a deputy commissioner of the Tax Office. In an essay titled "A few big firms" for The Monthly magazine, Australia's Labor shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh and ANU researcher Adam Triggs document a worrying concentration of power in corporate Australia into the hands of the few. Not only is the big end of town increasingly getting into bed with each other – with a record 3057 mergers and acquisitions in 2007, compared to just 346 in 1990 – but every year there are fewer little guys setting up shop. In the 2000s, the number of new businesses created each year grew by around 17 per cent. In the 2010s, this has fallen to 13 per cent.

From the big bank scandals of CommInsure, Storm Financial and Timbercorp to Murray Goulburn's decision to retrospectively cut prices for dairy suppliers; from the creation of faux craft beer brands like White Rabbit, Little Creatures and Kosciusko by the big brewers, to Nurofen's suite of misleading "targeted pain relief" products: big business is flexing its muscles. "We are seeing a rise in firms using their market power for anti-competitive purposes to the detriment of small businesses, workers and consumers," Leigh and Triggs conclude. "And we are seeing a rise in anti-consumer conduct which is reducing the incentive of firms to compete on the price, quality and effectiveness of their goods and services." Increasingly it's clear that capitalism and the rule of free markets is an ideal to which we should strive, not some innate state of being waiting to be unleashed from excessive government control. The invisible hand of markets has, in fact, always required the strong arm of state to support it, by guaranteeing property rights, minimum standards for workers and imposing strong laws against collusion. And now, more than ever, that arm needs strengthening.

As Leigh and Triggs note, healthy markets and strong competition is good for consumers and workers, driving capital owners to be more innovative and driving better choice and product quality for consumers, and conditions for workers. Leigh and Triggs propose a range of policies to help improve markets, including a crackdown on "non-compete clauses" for employees, more sensitive planning and zoning laws, easier visa access for entrepreneurs, bigger penalties for misleading advertising, and giving the ACCC the power to conduct random "market studies" to identify problematic industries, like happens in Britain and was recommended by the 2015 Harper review of competition. The Economist prescribes stronger anti-trust or pro-competition laws, a crackdown on chief executives' salaries, shutting the revolving door between politics and business and giving greater attention to the increasing casualisation of work. Capitalist's most fervent advocates would do well, as The Economist has, to concede the flaws in their system. Because capitalism needs fixing, not overthrowing. But if it comes to it, the masses can be surprisingly undiscerning, throwing the baby of free trade away with the bathwater of rising inequality and cronyism.

Freer trade and exchange has delivered undreamed of riches and advances in consumer choice – even if they have been unequally shared. As the world economy stagnates, and Australian workers suffer the lowest wages growth on record, the world needs capitalism now more than ever.