If you want to sink to that level, fine.
What does Mike's employer, Google, stand to gain from large blocks that only large companies can afford to process and validate? What does Google stand to gain from a system where every last transaction is recorded on a public blockchain, ripe for datamining? Mike after all works for a company that has a "real names" policy and actively tries to ensure users can-not use its services anonymously. Keep in mind Mike is also being paid by Google to work on Bitcoin; 20% time projects, while often speculative, are approved by management and must relate to Google's business interests in some fashion.
I'm sorry but the above seems incredibly thin as rationale that Mike is arguing in biased fashion motivated by Google's interest. That's just my opinion.
Leaving the block size limited to 1 MB will create centralization and lack of anonymity.
With a fixed block size, most people in the world won't be able to conduct transactions directly on the blockchain ...
Let me ask you something. Do you think
most people in the world would want to? If so, why?