I have no doubt that he, like most of his political persuasion, believes in the microeconomics theory of the firm, where each entity is economically insignificant and can be replaced by a new market entrant at any point in time, not least because everyone has, according to this theory, access to capital to promote any viable business that they might conceive of. As a consequence, according to this theory, business failure is not a problem. It does instead make space for new opportunists. However, this theory is wrong.
Given that that’s not the microeconomic theory of the firm I’m not sure how many people do believe this.
It’s remarkable how much arguing he does with his own misunderstandings really.