You quotes don't go around this argument. For example "A man is motivated by a desire to achieve, not to beat others" only implies there is neither hate nor love for competitors. It doesn't mean that if actively harming others is beneficial to achievement, one still shouldn't do it. It just means do it for logical, not emotional, reasons. Do it to help yourself, not to hurt them. The same with the first quote. Civilized, like controlling the herds or grain, is totally dispassionate but not empathetic (which, in that very quote, seems to be equated to power). None of those quotes imply any inherent worth in human beings, just that, under proper circumstances, they can call for respect or admiration (a sensation that can exist among adversaries, even adversaries that wish to do wholly immoral things to one another). A stranger on the street merits neither. More to the point, none of those quotes says actively defrauding or hurting another is bad. The best of them only imply that you shouldn't do it for the wrong reason, or that other people can potentially be respected or admired (for achievement, the idea that life has intrinsic value is not present at all except maybe from the perspective of the person whose life it actually is).
Again I bring up Goldman-Sachs. They purposely defrauded not only the worldwide financial system (in conjunction with other organizations) but purposely sold shit stocks to their own clients to bet against themselves. The result of these actions was a worldwide financial meltdown that meant a lot of people struggling and sacrificing livelihood. Is there absolutely anything wrong with this from the Randian standpoint? Or is it just the excellent (that deified class every follower of Rand thinks themselves a member of, though almost all are, in reality, just like everyone else) using the common or stupid for their own great good: self-interest? But I don't see any line in the sand between when taking from others for your own good goes from alright to immoral. Where, between purely capitalistic tendencies often designed to gain someone every penny they can at the cost of an entire society's financial security and downright murder for personal gain is that line drawn? Where's THAT Rand quote? Where does she say, directly: there are moral limits to what one can do in pursuit of personal gain? I have a strong suspicion it doesn't exist, honestly.
I love reason as much as the next guy (probably more, honestly, I can agree with Rand in loving reason over pretty much anything else), but reason without restraint from some form of feeling or intentional compromise is 100% immoral. The only exception is the Kantian view, and Rand thought he was the worst person to ever live (again, the fact that Kant is worse than Hitler in her view keys me to the fact that actions are only evil or good if the help or hurt the person doing them) I doubt she sees it that way.