[mseebach]

In that case they make very bad arguments, because such an equilibrium would be expected to be quite stable (although Uber might not be part of it).

[emodendroket]

If Uber "is not part of the equilibrium" then that would suggest it wasn't sustainable.

[mseebach]

So they would have preferred it, possibly come to a different conclusion, if Uber would have been likely to be established as a perpetual monopoly?

[emodendroket]

It's not a normative argument.

[mseebach]

So they did not base any decision on the observation?

[emodendroket]

I don't understand what you are asking.

[mseebach]

My interpretation of your comments is that the state of North Carolina used as an argument against deregulating its taxi market to an extent that would allow Uber to operate in the state that Uber might not survive the ensuing competition.

If so, that is indeed then a normative observation, and it's also a pretty silly argument. Thus, my incredulity that is actually the case. I'd be interested in knowing what, then, their argument actually was.