Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.