so leave it to the market, it wasn't ever agreed developers could manipulate the protocol to adjust fees to a level they dreamed appropriate, that's a Comical idea.
as pointed out many times by many people transaction fees are subsidized by block rewards, fees will increase when the reword drops enough, and the rewards are necessary to grow the network, who could argue what the correct fare for a taxi should be if 99% of the fee is subsidized by the cab company.
very apt analogy
We're getting at the crux at the issue here, and thus now in danger of productive discourse occurring.
Continuing with the semi-apt metaphor of Uber's now-canonical salient example of Disruption, let us note Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar are burning copious amounts of VC funding to subsidize their ridesharing customers/drivers, so great is their fetish for market share.
Their question is to what extent is it rational to subsidize rides in order to gain market share, and our own is to what extent their model should be emulated.
(If I knew how to calculate that, I'd be too busy making big bucks programming high-frequency option trading bots to post here...)
But Bitcoin's equivalents of VC largess (block reward subsidizes and charitable community good will) do not operate on the same ROI calculus, so the metaphor breaks down quickly and catastrophically.
And thus our community cleaves (perhaps fatally) into two halves, one favoring even more generous user subsidies for the sake of Metcalfe's Law, and the other (asshole Libertarians all), who object on principle to charging less that what the market will bear for the miraculous services Bitcoin offers.
