In 1975 Prof. H. Thomas Johnson claimed that materially the concept of return on investment [ROI] was the product of the 20th century. In 1984 I criticised his view by showing the existence of calculations of return on capital stock [ROCs] in the 19th century. In response to my article, Prof. Takatera insisted that Prof. Johnson claimed the non-existence of return on total assets [ROA] calculations, while Prof. Takaura asserted the existence of ROCs calculations. So he concluded that Prof. Johnson and Prof. Takaura's positions are not incompatible. In this paper, I reconsidered this problem. I clarify that in the 1830's U. S. corporations used the calculations of ROCs as ROA and as return on equity [ROE] judging from the following data : Maximum profit limitation articles of early New England railroad corporation charters and the questions and answers on ROE in the McLane Report (1833). So I conclude again Prof. Johnson was wrong.
During the decade finishing in 1944, a drastic change of production method occurred in aircraft industry in Japan, as in the U. S. Japan had joined late in the field of modern high-technological industry, then paid a great energy in catching up to develop world-level aircraft engines. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries played a big role for this. After developing some kind of excellent engines, Mitsubishi met a more difficult issue. It was the so-called mass production method (if not used in an accurate terminology), which they had not experienced in the field of such products that consist of so many parts, need long and precise mechanical operation processes. Under a strong leadership of J. Fukao, who was the key man of the engine department of the company, Mitsubishi strove for building a new method. First, they tried to imitate the system of the U.S. aircraft engine factories, and succeeded only a part. The industrial circumstances of Japan were not matured for a company to realize the same system. Mitsubishi ought to seek another way and their method might show the limits of the industrial abilities of a late-coming country. The most outstanding feature of the method could be expressed as the simultaneous capacity building in the total area of the production processes, including those of casting, forging, making special parts or machine tools as well as mechanical operation and assembly. The result was awful. However, this cumulative and self-generating experience formed the basis of production engineering of the next generation.
It is said that religious and ethnic minorities tend to have an advantage over majority in making profit. However, there seems to be no established theory to explain the reasons for this tendency. The purpose of this article is to clarify this tendency through an analysis of ethnic personality. It is difficult for Japanese to recognize the existence of the Korean first generation in Japan who have superiority in the moneymaking activity. Because it is almost impossible for Japanese to differentiate Koreans from Japanese in outward appearance and they use Japanese name when they are in business. For example, Takeo Shigemitsu the founder of Lotte Co., Ltd. and Hisakichi Yamaguchi the founder of Daiwa-seikan Co., Ltd., ets. There was the ethnical discrimination in employment against Koreans. There was nochoice except lowly tasks, they had to set up business on their own. This circumstance focused not only their but also the next generations' capabilities on a certain industry. The Korean first generation in Japan have ethnocentric idea and take a special pride in their noble ancestors. Their value is based on traditional Korean Confucianism that they have been taught. This teaching worked effectively as a warrentable excuse and motivation when they started business. They had a will to invest in their mother country in order that they may return or send something home with fortune and honor. This became the entrepreneurship of the Korean first generation in Japan. But the second and the third generation differs from the first generation in personality, because they were assimilated into Japanese. This resulted in decline in their ability as entrepreneurship. This fact proves that the difference in ethnic personality in one society is one of the most important factor in establishing the entrepreneurship.