I remember you used to write somewhat coherently on raising the blocksize, if not everything else, what happened? Drank too deeply from Gregory's cup?
You are arguing for microtransactions when it's impossible to have microtransactions on a blockchain. Yes, 5 cent and 20 cent transactions are still cheap because even if you raised blocksize 10x higher, the transaction fee would still eventually become so high that only $10,000 transactions and more would be valid even with 8-10MB blocks. The only thing that would allow you to do microtransactions is a second tier system like Lightning Network or off-chain solutions like Circle and Coinbase debit cards. Anything directly on chain will always be expensive.
In short, you make no valid points because you are arguing for microtransactions directly on-chain when it's not possible.
My argument is that the only people who should be setting pricing for block space are the
producers of that space, the
miners.
Miners are not the producers of blockchain space they are the producers of hashing power (securing the blockchain), if there are such things as 'producers' of blockchain space, it is the broad ecosystem of fully-validating nodes.
(NB: Nice try at derailing the economics of the argument in your "Massive on-chain scaling" biased favour though.)
Nodes are an enforcement mechanism, but
by no means do they decide the size of blocks to be produced (until we hit the anti-dos limit from 2010 recently). If the dos limit was lifted, miners would resume sizing blocks according to their own supply curve and the demand curve they serve. I somehow doubt miners would cram all blocks full to the new limit with free transactions, it would not be in their own interest to strain the node network in such a manner.
Just admit it, you think the economic incentives that satoshi used to design Bitcoin cant work, and you need Gregory and friends to protect you from free market capitalism and the incentives that make it work.