>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.