Jon Mills' paper, with the other papers in this issue, make the enterprise of the IJCD very worthwhile. He is pessimistic where pessimism is warranted, for example, about the future of analytic training in the United States and the economic constraints on psychoanalytic practice. And he is optimistic where optimism is justified: the future of psychoanalysis in academia and the availability of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic training in other countries and regions, including Latin America. Psychoanalytic treatment and training have benefited from governmental support in Germany, although treatment support has recently decreased from four to three times a week. I concur with his advocacy for pro bono psychoanalytic training and there is the model of the free clinics which were encouraged by Freud in Vienna and then in other countries of Europe as well. Freud proposed that every analyst provide one free analysis, and if time didn't allow them to do that, that they contribute the funds for one analysis, which is what Freud did. Mills and I are in total agreement about the problem of oligarchy and authoritarianism in analytic organizations and in analytic training. Much has been accomplished by the efforts of some in the American Psychoanalytic Association but more needs to be done. Our next assignment is to find some way of replacing the training analyst system with personal analysis. The training analyst system corrodes psychoanalytic institutes and the psychoanalysis of the candidates themselves. Many have written about that this, including Zvi Lothane, Otio Kernberg, Howard Shevrin and others in this issue. Is this an issue that we should be optimistic or pessimistic about? No one in power gives up power willingly, which may make the problem insurmountable.