This isn't true now and it hasn't been for quite a while now, transactions need to carry fees to go through because miners have another choice that you happen to overlook - they don't have to mine a transaction if they don't want to. Miners can ignore transactions and let another miner mine them. This is actually beneficial for them because it decreases their blocksize and therefore their latency. If a miner mines a block unusually quickly by chance and wants to be generous, they can include more low fee transactions but I'm not sure this something anyone is doing automatically.
So it isn't the bleak outlook you describe because mining small fee transactions isn't to anyone's benefit.
The point still stands, and you're demonstrating confirmation bias. How much money have you put into Bitcoin, I wonder?
None of this makes any sense at all, the words don't even go together in the context of bitcoin. It is isn't even coherent enough to be true or false, it reads more like some sort of auto generated nonsense. Do you even understand what I said earlier?
I get that you have some sort of vendetta against bitcoin but stringing words is pretty desperate.
Bitcoin prevents individuals from making these one-time power grabs by design. Even if they colluded, the miners are not going to agree to increase the blocksize because it immediately means less money for 99.999% of them.
Again, it's tragedy of the commons. They could work together to make the shared resource better for someone trying to use Bitcoin as a day to day currency, but instead they're rationally maximizing their own returns.