Perhaps my sarcasm of personal affections was misplaced--never get into a pissing contest with a skunk.
Austrian Skool Economics--Mises tossed in with Hayek--is the only thing going this says, 'Any government intervention is bad'. Otherwise, Classical skool people--be they liberal or conservative-- debate on how much is necessary, not 'if'.
My position is half conservative (less is better) and only half Austrian, because they cannot do math.
As far as a correct Rand-ology goes, she seemed to have taken on a rather bizarre bi-valence, as if tobacco and alcohol was a severe problem. On the one hand, yes, she hated Hayek's 'Roads' although it gave her amo to say, 'government always messes things up.
She likewise hated his and Mises' citation of cycles and false prosperity. Then there was the hate associated with their justifivcation of capitalism as supporting the state via the institution of private property creating many stakeholders. This, of course, lacked requisite ideological purity.
In short, she hated the smaller differences between her and the Austrians, while cannabalizing their main thrust: again, no government intervention into the economy. She was a big hater who never thanked others for their influence. Sounds like a spoiled premka, to me.
Atlas is about what we call 'monopolies'. Galt was a 'monopolist' , who actually happens to be the main character, as in 'Who is John Galt"? Rand's justification for monopolies is that this economic form corresponds to the skill distribution that naturally occurs among people, in a Gaussian sort of way.
Austrians opposed this in principle as 'bad', so there's a rupture in beliefs, of sorts, between the two. But then again, the austrians never borrowed anything from Rand, except possibly tearing pages out of Atlas for cleaning windows.
Again,the relationship was all take and no give. Virtue of selfishness, anyone?