No, his argument is that you should not say "new companies should not go into debt".
His financial advice is "don't think about the amount or the debt, but think about the cash flow analysis."
He goes on to state that many new companies won't need to go into debt to be successful along the terms the founds define them.
You are presenting a straw-man argument. He even says, it isn't that the argument is wrong, but that there are better (more complete) frames to examine this problem. Your point (4) is literally false.
His financial advice is "don't think about the amount or the debt, but think about the cash flow analysis."
He goes on to state that many new companies won't need to go into debt to be successful along the terms the founds define them.
You are presenting a straw-man argument. He even says, it isn't that the argument is wrong, but that there are better (more complete) frames to examine this problem. Your point (4) is literally false.