One of the principles of economics is that markets usually produce efficient results. In general, I believe that competition is a powerful force and produces good results in the long run. I feel that organizations that choose not to or are not able to compete will eventually be deleted by the market.
Here's an example from about 25 years ago. One day my stereo broke down. Growing up in a smaller town, there was only one stereo repair shop close by. They checked it out and said they would fix it within a couple weeks.
Two weeks went by. I stopped in, and they said they were still working on it. 3 weeks went by, and the same thing happened. Then 4 weeks, then 5. It became apparent that this company really didn't care about me or fixing my stereo. They had a virtual monopoly and so they could do what they wanted. Eventually, I just gave up and told them to give me the stereo back. It only worked halfway but it was better than nothing.
Years later, I noticed this company went out of business. I couldn't have been happier. It was just an awful business that soaked time and money from consumers.
When wal-mart first started, you read about how it put out many "mom-and-pop" businesses. This was true, but nobody seemed to mention how many of these mom-and-pop businesses were poorly run and overpriced. In my mind, wal-mart did communities a favor. I am all for wal-mart (even though I don't shop there). It's simply makes markets more competitive and puts inefficient companies out of business.
I think the internet has also done markets a favor. Now you are no longer trapped dealing with a local geographic band of suppliers, but you have a worldwide supply. Again, more competition equals more efficiency.
Coming from this perspective, it bothers me when I see organizations that aren't competing. Do they think they are insulated from the rest of the world? Do they think they don't have to compete for some reason?
I think not. Markets will catch up with all the weak players eventually.