If you cut out the Ayn Rand qualifier from that statement, you're left with "just blatant horseshit". While that is an emotional statement, the core of the absurdity is already revealed in the preceding paragraph. In essence he's already made a substantive argument, is your complaint that you're not following? You find the situation described normal? Perhaps you are not convinced that is what was originally described, and instead it needs to be read with more nuance?
Substantive argument? Care to point that out? Because to me it looks like he is claiming that inequality is unimportant because the poor now have cell phones and color TVs. Which is... hardly compelling. It seems like an extraordinary claim backed by an empty argument. Hence bullshit. I also spend about as much effort refuting flat earth claims, that is to say almost none.