Replies

And this crisis was caused, to a great extent, by Randian economics.

Nope.
The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making

a messianic form of capitalism that demonized the state and society, while fostering an idolatry of the individual entrepreneur, the corporate CEO, and the unabashed pursuit of money as the highest moral good.

The capitalism favored by Ayn Rand conforms to and is compatible with the values of the Founding Fathers of limited government, individualism, a culture based on reason and rationality, and respect for the natural rights of liberty, private property, and pursuit of happiness by the individual.

The unabashed pursuit of money as the highest moral good:
In a modern division of labor economy, the earning of money becomes an essential aspect of productive activity. This is because in order to live in such an economy, one must obtain the goods and services of other people. These goods and services are not given away for free, nor, to any significant extent are they, or could they be, obtained through barter. To obtain the goods and service of others, one must possess money. Thus, if one's productive activity is to be appropriate to life in a division of labor society, that is to be the means of obtaining the goods and services of others, it is essential that it be moneymaking. Only then does one's activity make it possible for one to share in the benefits of a division of labor society.

Second, Rand’s ideology is morally reprehensible. Rand proclaimed such things as compassion, generosity, charity, and empathy as evil and enemies of humanity.

Nope.

Rand's ethics were influenced by Aristotle and were the product of both reason and observation of reality. She considered the initiation of physical force, evasion of reality, failure to be rational in thought and action, altruism, collectivism, and socialism to be the enemies of humanity. Benevolence, generosity, compassion, charity were acceptable if they were not forced and were not a sacrifice of one's values.

Last, and contrary to her own claims, Rand was an enemy of intelligence and rational thought. She fancied herself a philosopher, but was at best a polemicist. Her understanding of philosophy and its history was amateurish at best. She demonized essential thinkers like Emmanuel Kant without addressing their ideas in any but the shallowest way.

Ayn Rand's theory of concepts was brilliant. It provides a way to achieve objectivity of knowledge, values, concepts, and truth. She corrected Aristotle's errors and produced the pathway to integration that produces objective principles. Kant's philosophy is of a set of affirmations, worldly or otherworldly, but of negations. In metaphysics Kant denies the reality of this world not n favor of a higher realm, such as God, but in favor of an inconceivable-that is, of a nothing, nothing to human consciousness; he denies for sake of the denial. In epistemology, Kant condemns man's consciousness as impotent to grasp real truth, not because our mind is inferior to some higher consciousness, but because, like every kind of consciousness it requires a means of consciousness. Again, Kant denies for the sake of the denial. These negations make Kant the father of disintegration and negation of principles.