>there’s no guaranteeing the integrity of future entrants into the market.
There is no guarantee in any market; you survive by the product you provide, you can sell food that tastes bad (but is not rotten) and then change the name of it any amount of times you want, but without appealing to the market you just end up broke.
Is the same way here; if you don't even give the classes that's a scam and if it happens to you then you sue them; if they are "low-quality" you just give everyone involved bad reviews and go on with your life.
Walmart sells millions of very "low-quality" stuff, but people knows that "you get what you pay for", but even if they suddenly increased the prices on their low-quality stuff they would still be legal. Why is different with education?
I myself wouldn't use the word guarantee this way, as you rightly point out, but to be fair, it's part of a hypothetical.
It looks like you didn't understand the last part of my response. It takes time for a feedback mechanism to operate, and in some fields that asymmetric information and time lag can be exploited in ways that are well known, generally considered unethical, and more easily addressed through regulation than lawsuits.
The article even gives examples; of companies which "make bold claims about alumni making six figure salaries upon graduation" but omit that that is a rarity, and "boast of high placement rates" but omit to say that "many students either quit or are kicked out, which inflates placement numbers."
These are obvious cases of information asymmetry, and the companies aren't even lying, so what is there to sue about? Misleading advertising?
Plus, it's disproportionally likely that students will not have the resources to make a legal challenge on their own, or that a lawsuit would be effective. It would require a class action lawsuit, which is more complicated, more expensive, and it's more likely that the school would declare bankruptcy, and the organizers start another school. (Just like some West Virginia water polluting company I've heard about.)
Wal*Mart and the goods they sell are subject to a lot of regulation. I don't understand your point.
>It looks like you didn't understand the last part of my response. It takes time for a feedback mechanism to operate, and in some fields that asymmetric information and time lag can be exploited in ways that are well known, generally considered unethical.
That seems to imply that value at some point is completely established and that couldn't farther from the true; this is the same world where you can legally sell dog-haircuts for thousands of dollars, doesn't mean it is a scam or that we have to create a government regulation for dog fashion standards.
About walmart: No they are not; clothes lost their color and integrity pretty quickly; their towels stain everything, etc. Just read their reviews... pretty much anywhere.
Or are you arguing that nothing should be regulated?
If the clothes you bought from Wal-Mart violated consumer protection regulations, then sue them. If you think there should be laws in place, then talk to your legislative representatives.
(Edit: Wal-Mart is subject to OSHA, the FSA issues food product regulations, its money order business is regulated by the FDIC, and so on. You confuse, I think, "some regulation" with "completely regulated.")
There's a long history behind the reason for regulations, stretching back to the muck racking journalism of the 1800s. Do you disagree with all of it?
And I really don't understand your "dog fashion standards" issue. Where's the information asymmetry? Where's the time lag which can be exploited by unscrupulous dog hair dressers?
This regulation or no regulation? It would be like asking if I like women with big eyes or women with no eyes; of course there is a middle ground but this is erring on the wrong side by a lot.