(For what it's worth: I don't hate poor people, nor do I think all rich people deserve their wealth, nor do I think the free market is a universal panacea for all ills.
What Rand actually says is that there are good people and there are bad people, and the defining characteristic of good people, the essence of virtue is not altruism, but productive work. People rarely mention that there were truck drivers and manual workers in Galt's Gulch, and that half of the villains in the novel are unscrupulous businessmen).
Rand didn't actually say that much that's original about economics per se. This leads people on both left and right to dismiss her as a simplistic thinker. This ignores what is original is what she's saying.
Unlike many libertarians, she doesn't argue that the free market is good because it leads to good results for society. She says that a capitalist society is good because it's the only society which fully protects individual rights. It's not a coincidence that capitalist societies are more prosperous -- however, when this is used as the justification for capitalism, the logical conclusion is to have a semi-free market where the government tries to manage the economy and optimise different variables (GDP, employment, inflation, etc), i.e. the system in almost every western country today. I'd argue the constant financial crises and ballooning sovereign debt show that this system cannot possibly be sustained.
Also: the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is not respected in official Objectivist circles. It's one of a number of organisations which attempt to water down Rand's message to appeal to more people, but as a result put off both Objectivists and non-Objectivists.