Continuing the conversation started by article 1 and responses to article 2, we would like first of all to express our deep gratitude to all the participants of a very interesting discussion and, of course, to the editorial board of the journal that organized this discussion. In any case, the panelists raised and discussed a number of interrelated issues, including those that are fundamentally important for theory and practice. Among them, of course, were the prevailing model of the world order, its impact on the socio-economic development of specific countries, and the likelihood of an alternative, replacement, or transformation (modification) of this model. Aggregate indicators of socio-economic development (primarily GDP) and their adequacy to the tasks of measuring the relative levels and quality of development of different countries were discussed. Current trends in scientific and technological progress, such as whether "innovation clusters" are driving economic growth, also came into focus. Considerable attention was paid to the role of the financial sector in the economies of developed and developing countries and to the reflection of this role in the economic growth models of these countries and in the models of the future world order. Many participants spoke in favor of changing approaches to understanding the global and regional problems of the modern world and Russia's place in it. Our discussion, which was not constrained by the rigid framework of the agenda, undoubtedly provided both a sufficient variety of views on China's place in the modern world and a common understanding of the importance of integrated approaches to this issue. We remind readers of the deliberate sharpness of some of the accents in our first article, stipulated in the preamble. Unfortunately, this sharpness sometimes led our readers who took part in the discussion away from our main topic: the interaction of mainstream 3 and Chinese practice - interactions, not contradictions, espe ... Read more