Its why Adam Smith believed that all the problems in the economy were a result of shortages and maxing out production would resolve it all, although it has to be said that he only considered self-interest as a legitimate motor in this because it would ultimately serve social ends, ie "not from benefice" that one person meets anothers needs.
Spencer and others took up the idea of altruism after that and their argument was that altruism discriminates the most between deserving and undeserving of relief from poverty or need and that it is also sufficient.
Modern liberals, and pretty much all politicians, are convinced of that now, although some of their supporters may believe it is necessary but not sufficient and also that there are some grounds for indiscriminate relief of poverty or needs where ample socially produced wealth exists.
Better than any of those ideas I think mutual aid and reciprocity, or even some sorts of paternalistic authority, and I also think that those ideas are as much an objective reality as self-interest balanced with altruism. The only difference is while Rand's philosophy is entirely obligation free those are not.
I'd also say that Rand's philosophy appeals to the present day consumerist and neurotic or narcissistic age pretty well, in fact its little different from the excuses any addict or alcoholic is going to repeatedly come up with for their behaviour.