I disagree with this author's basic premise and his conclusions. He has done an excellent job of cherry picking in order to make a case, but has failed to understand Rand. If he does understand, he is disingenuous. I see him as a second-hander trying to gain notoriety on the back of a name he cannot equal. The details are critical, as well as full context. To understand why he is wrong and details such as why Rand did value producers of every strata, one need only study the larger body of work... the more academic works not the fiction. I see few references to those bodies of work from this author (except for one cherry picked essay). The Fictional characters were chosen for dramatic affect and with artistic license.

The noted dialog of working for money or for satisfaction of achievement are examples of cherry picking and are in contradiction with Francisco's "Money speech", which the author fails to mention. Of course they work for the money because it is evidence of recognition. "Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce."

I am currently reading Ludwig Von Mises' "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" I believe there is much to be learned within it. From what I have read so far, in this narrow field, I believe Von Mises will prove to be quite informative and accurate.

unlike what the von mises group thinks, it is not manufacturing or re-production that gives a high quality and standard of life to people. It is not mindlessly fulfilling what people think they want and need. Capitalism is driven forward by people using their minds to create new stuff-often stuff they want for themselves. Taking one of the author's examples-plastic diapers. There are at least 10s of inventions in the modern diaper. It is a feat of high quality, modern engineering with great benefit to babies and their parents. and along that line another great invention was how the weaving industry transformed. the simple thing of being able to sell affordable cotton underwear, saved millions upon millions of lives.
check Peter Thiel's book Zero to One:http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421683614&sr=1-1&keywords=zero+to+one

first, thanks for posting. This is a very interesting article, I believe someone a while back also posted. But it serves well to re-visit.
second, the author's premise is incorrect and his conclusions about what capitalism is, are false.
Capitalism is not about mercantilism. It is not about just giving the public what they want. It is not even about maximizing profit.His example of Gail Wynand as the ethos of capitalism demonstrates that von Mises explanation for capitalism-almost showing it as an altruistic system.
Capitalism is about trading your value for other value in return. Steve Jobs did not give people what they wanted or needed. He gave them what he wanted to build-what he needed and wanted for himself. The concept that capitalism is all about production, manufacturing and meeting consumers' needs completely misses the mark for the whole purpose of why the system is moral. Dagny's goal was not to just keep the trains running, nor was Rearden's goal to produce more steel than any other steel manufacturer. No his goal was his invention of Rearden Metal and Dagny's goal was to incorporate that invention into her industry. "the people" would have mostly been clueless about superior bridges and why a Dagny would want one. But once it is achieved it can be appreciated and incorporated with great benefit into other industries(the metal).
Halley did not compose his symphonies to make it into the top 40, he wrote his music for himself. Ultimately to succeed in capitalism you have to attract the other part of that value. and yes, capitalism is a system that offers the most for the most. But no one was screaming for plastic buttons. no. people saw the benefit from producing the polymers first and then figuring out the best way to produce it on a manufacturing line and then existing industries saw its uses. Think 3D printing today.
Sam Walton didn't succeed by just stocking big box stores with low priced items-he developed a sophisticated distribution system that significantly reduced his transportation costs. He didn't set out to run the dimestore on the square out of business, he set out get the most products into the hands of the most people at the cheapest price.
What drives the world forward,

Largely a Socratic dialog with some Hegelian thesis-antithesis thrown in plus a little Alinsky/Obama blame your enemy for your sins., trying to freeze Objectivists and make us doubt ourselves. For instance, he writes

"...A feeling of control over one’s life and pride in productive achievements are certainly wonderful feelings. They can derive directly from the type of work done by Communist administrators and the heroes of Rand’s novels,..."

skipping over the fact that Rand's heroes wanted control over their own lives while
"Communist administrators" seek control over others lives and productive efforts. Notice also "A feeling of control..." which emphasizes emotions rather than Branden's "...sense of control..." which emphasizes reason.

He tries, by the "hidden concept" to equate Communists and Capitalists "...She thought that the sum of their economic activities and interactions provides a template of what laissez-faire capitalism would be like. She was wrong. When the heroes who embody her sense of life engage in economic activities, they function like Communist administrators, not capitalist businessmen." So you see Rearden was a "Communist administrator" just like Stalin. Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, and Chavez. This fellow's heroes are Obama "you didn't build that" and Senator Warren "People before profits".

Ergo, Rand was confused, Capitalists are evil, Individual Rights including private property must be abolished, Objectivism must be cast aside, CO2 producing industries must be halted all so that a perfect Society can, finally, be achieved on Earth.

What garbage this way comes.

This why I am not an Austrian.

The Austrians are anti-reason as typified by Hayak.
The Austrians are subjectivists as typified by Von Mises idea about prices.
The Austrians push capitalism as altruism and typified by this article.
The Austrians do not understand fractional reserve banking.
The Austrians are anti-technology as typified by their anti-patent stand.

I am going to give myself the pleasure of disagreeing with both prime antagonists.

The article is not interesting at all, boring and rambling, it made no case but jumped around.
It does reflect the kind or the standard of thinking usual in Austrian publications or sites.
The way I read Rand is that capitalism is not the prime ideal but the necessary outcome of carefully thought out statements about life and human freedom. To attribute opposite views to Austrians seems only like a fault finding mission. Fault finding is great fun and has important applications, I do it a lot, it is best done with Objectivist objectivity - logical consistency. There are differences between Austrians and Objectivists that need further publicizing and discussion, To me, the description of altruism as neutral if voluntary, dangerous, or always harmful is an interesting topic.