Core Viewpoint - The trend of cross-industry expansion among technology companies is gaining momentum, with firms seeking new growth avenues in response to complex industry and economic environments [1][3]. Group 1: Cross-Industry Expansion - DJI has ventured into the sweeping robot and panoramic camera markets, while other companies like Roborock and Ecovacs are exploring new domains such as laundry appliances and smart kitchens [2]. - Xiaomi's foray into the automotive sector has significantly boosted its stock price, which has increased over 200% in the past year [3]. - The company Chase has announced its ambition to become a "boundary-less ecological enterprise," entering multiple sectors including drones, automobiles, kitchen appliances, and more [3][4]. Group 2: Chase's Ambitions - Chase's CEO, Yu Hao, has expressed intentions to create a high-end airline service, aiming to dominate the air travel market [4][6]. - The company is actively forming a professional drone development team and has invested 4 billion in establishing a smart home appliance headquarters in Nanjing [6][7]. - Chase plans to produce 4.5 million units annually for its ice-washing appliances, with rapid progress from signing to construction [7]. Group 3: Product Positioning and Market Strategy - Chase's television products are positioned in the ultra-high-end market, priced between $1,500 and $2,500, emphasizing a "flagship" and "top-tier" branding [8]. - The automotive division of Chase is also aggressive, with multiple business units focusing on different vehicle types, including SUVs and luxury cars [10][11]. - The first batch of prototype vehicles includes modified versions of popular models, showcasing Chase's innovative approach [12]. Group 4: Technological Foundation - Chase's product lines share commonalities, leveraging mature core technologies such as high-speed motors and autonomous driving capabilities [14]. - The company has a strong emphasis on self-developed technology, which serves as its primary competitive advantage and growth engine [14]. - Chase's rapid market penetration is supported by its history of innovation, having previously developed high-speed motors that outperformed industry standards [14]. Group 5: Market Competition and Challenges - The global smart vacuum cleaner market is competitive, with leading companies holding significant market shares, and Chase currently at 8% [15]. - Despite the technological advantages of established players like DJI, entering new markets remains challenging, as evidenced by mixed reviews of their new products [21][24]. - The pursuit of new growth avenues is fraught with difficulties, as many companies face the reality of saturated markets requiring disruptive innovation [29][30].

Group 1 - The core argument of the article revolves around the historical and contemporary perspectives on high tariffs and trade protectionism, particularly in developing countries [1][2][4] - The article highlights the contradiction that while many economists have proven the ineffectiveness of protected industries, the call for high tariffs persists, especially from advanced nations [3][4] - The article discusses the evolution of trade policies in the U.S. as outlined by Douglas Irwin, focusing on three main goals: Revenue, Restriction, and Reciprocity, with the emphasis shifting over time [5][30] Group 2 - The "Infant Industry Argument" proposed by Alexander Hamilton suggests that nascent industries require temporary protection from foreign competition to develop [6][7] - Friedrich List expanded on Hamilton's ideas, advocating for differentiated and progressive tariffs to protect industries with potential for growth while allowing for eventual transition to free trade [10][11] - Raul Prebisch's "Center-Periphery" theory posits that developing countries must break the unequal trade relationship with industrialized nations through strategies like import substitution and export-oriented growth [13][14][16] Group 3 - Empirical studies by economists like Frédéric Bastiat and Amasa Walker demonstrate that trade protection often leads to inefficiencies and does not guarantee the intended benefits for domestic industries [19][22] - Philippe Aghion's research indicates that protectionist policies can hinder economic dynamism and lead to stagnation, as seen in Japan's economy [28][29] - The article suggests that non-tariff measures may be more effective than tariffs in achieving trade protection goals, as supported by various studies [29][30] Group 4 - The article outlines the historical phases of U.S. trade policy, indicating a potential return to a focus on revenue generation through tariffs as the national debt escalates [33][39] - The shift in U.S. industrial structure towards services and the geographical concentration of manufacturing has implications for future trade policy [37][38] - The increasing national debt and its impact on fiscal policy may drive the U.S. government to prioritize high tariffs as a means of revenue generation [38][39]

第三， 每一轮技术革命可进一步划分为导入期（Installation Period）和展开期（Deployment Period）。导入期又进一步包括爆发阶段与狂热阶段。在爆发阶 段，新技术初步出现并引发投资热潮，金融资本主导，技术创新与投机泡沫并存；至狂热阶段，技术应用快速扩散，但市场泡沫逐步退潮。展开期进一步包括协同 阶段与成熟阶段。协同阶段的特点是技术逐渐成熟，开始与实体经济深度融合，社会制度（如政策、法规）开始适应新技术，形成稳定的"技术-经济范式"；至成 熟阶段，技术已经全面普及，并开始相对稳定地助力经济增长 。 第四， 关于技术革命对经济增长的影响，经典的理论主要是卢卡斯和罗默的"内生增长理论"、熊彼特的"创造性破坏理论"。内生增长理论把技术进步视为内生变 量，通过人力资本积累、研发投入、知识溢出等因素推动，技术是一种可积累的公共品，会不断地作用于经济。创造性破坏理论则认为技术创新的本质是结构性变 革，是新技术对旧技术的替代，以及它带来的市场垄断权的更迭和产业结构的重组。简单来看二者区别，内生增长理论之下，技术革命是线性的、连续的；创造性 破坏理论之下，技术革命是非连续的、跳跃性的。从"创造性破坏 ...