Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
New Kyudo Bleg
I've decided to start using this space as a sort of kyudo diary and as an exercise in writing on a regular basis.
Last night I was reading through the movement section of the kyohon: Standing, sitting, walking, turning, bowing. I'm a bit ashamed to acknowledge that this is the first time I read that section closely, and was surprised by the amount of space spent on ikiai (breathing properly.) It explains when to inhale and when to exhale when you're sitting down into kiza or seiza as well as when you're standing up or bowing. When you rei, for example, you take three breaths: Inhale while you go down, exhale while you hold the breath, and then inhale as you return to upright. Tonight I'll finish up that section to see if that timing also works for yu as well as if it is the same for the rei and yu when you enter the dojo.
Another tidbit I picked up that I had forgotten is that your knees should remain touching each other throughout hirakiashi. The knee that's doing the turning should also stay on the ground, but it can come off if you're not flexible enough as long as it continues touching the other knee. The act of sitting back down into kiza will naturally bring your trailing leg into line. And the turn should be completed in one inhale.
I have a lot of goals and things to work on, it will be interesting to look back on them after this coming seminar to see how they've changed.
Goals:
Consistently get yugaede by this seminar.
San dan this year. (2012)
Yon dan next year (2013)
Move up to an 18 kilo carbon bow by 2013.
Move up to a 20 kilo take yumi by the time I'm testing for go dan.
Eventually make it to renshi go dan.
Hit every arrow I shot at a seminar.
Act as a kaizoe at some point in time.
Be able to hold ikasu while in kiza.
Hold kiza for as long as necessary, be comfortable in seiza.
Shoot powerfully, sink my arrows deeper than anyone else with the same weight of bow. (But don't get competetive!)
Things to work on:
-Taihai:
Practice kiza every day.
Standing smoothly from kiza.
Sitting down smoothly into kiza.
Not stepping on my hakama when I stand up, especially after doing hirakiashi.
Keeping my weight centered as I set my feet during do zukuri.
Walking at the proper pace.
Mezukai.
Keeping my heels together in kiza and getting enough flexibility to get my butt all the way down to my heels.
Sitting down so that I'm still lined up with the target when I stand back up.
Measuring my pace so that I line up on the shai after stopping at the honza.
Walking smoothly with my heels down and my weight always centered without losing my posture.
Keep the proper pace.
Zanshin in my taihai movements, don't just do the movements, do them earnestly.
-Ikiai:
Breathe properly from the moment I enter the dojo until I exit and can relax my posture.
Remember to do each move in time with my breath, and not start the next move until I finish the breath. Don't rush!
Remember the proper timing to ikiai when doing taihai, and doing the same during the hassetsu.
Feel energy build up as I breathe.
Breathe from my belly, not my chest.
Practice breathing every day.
Hassetsu:
Try making a triangle with the middle finger, pinkie and fourth finger and see if that affects yugaedi and the strength of my te no uchi.
Push/extend my pinkie more so I can hold the bow more strongly without squeezing.
Pinkie strengthening exercises.
Push through my thumb while extending my pinkie for a strong shot and yugaedi.
Is the tip of my left thumb pointing up?
Keep my right thumb pointed at the target, not down.
Get my right hand as relaxed as possible, experiment!
On the release, give that last little burst with my chest, release with power. Make the release snap.
Keep my shoulders down.
Keep my elbows up properly all the way through uchiokoshi, don't need to perk my elbow up at the top and at dai san.
How high should I raise my bow? Am I raising it too high?
Get my pull to the right length, I'm pulling too far right now. Maybe narrow dai san some.
That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I'll think of a lot more things and run into even more in practice.
Last night I was reading through the movement section of the kyohon: Standing, sitting, walking, turning, bowing. I'm a bit ashamed to acknowledge that this is the first time I read that section closely, and was surprised by the amount of space spent on ikiai (breathing properly.) It explains when to inhale and when to exhale when you're sitting down into kiza or seiza as well as when you're standing up or bowing. When you rei, for example, you take three breaths: Inhale while you go down, exhale while you hold the breath, and then inhale as you return to upright. Tonight I'll finish up that section to see if that timing also works for yu as well as if it is the same for the rei and yu when you enter the dojo.
Another tidbit I picked up that I had forgotten is that your knees should remain touching each other throughout hirakiashi. The knee that's doing the turning should also stay on the ground, but it can come off if you're not flexible enough as long as it continues touching the other knee. The act of sitting back down into kiza will naturally bring your trailing leg into line. And the turn should be completed in one inhale.
I have a lot of goals and things to work on, it will be interesting to look back on them after this coming seminar to see how they've changed.
Goals:
Consistently get yugaede by this seminar.
San dan this year. (2012)
Yon dan next year (2013)
Move up to an 18 kilo carbon bow by 2013.
Move up to a 20 kilo take yumi by the time I'm testing for go dan.
Eventually make it to renshi go dan.
Hit every arrow I shot at a seminar.
Act as a kaizoe at some point in time.
Be able to hold ikasu while in kiza.
Hold kiza for as long as necessary, be comfortable in seiza.
Shoot powerfully, sink my arrows deeper than anyone else with the same weight of bow. (But don't get competetive!)
Things to work on:
-Taihai:
Practice kiza every day.
Standing smoothly from kiza.
Sitting down smoothly into kiza.
Not stepping on my hakama when I stand up, especially after doing hirakiashi.
Keeping my weight centered as I set my feet during do zukuri.
Walking at the proper pace.
Mezukai.
Keeping my heels together in kiza and getting enough flexibility to get my butt all the way down to my heels.
Sitting down so that I'm still lined up with the target when I stand back up.
Measuring my pace so that I line up on the shai after stopping at the honza.
Walking smoothly with my heels down and my weight always centered without losing my posture.
Keep the proper pace.
Zanshin in my taihai movements, don't just do the movements, do them earnestly.
-Ikiai:
Breathe properly from the moment I enter the dojo until I exit and can relax my posture.
Remember to do each move in time with my breath, and not start the next move until I finish the breath. Don't rush!
Remember the proper timing to ikiai when doing taihai, and doing the same during the hassetsu.
Feel energy build up as I breathe.
Breathe from my belly, not my chest.
Practice breathing every day.
Hassetsu:
Try making a triangle with the middle finger, pinkie and fourth finger and see if that affects yugaedi and the strength of my te no uchi.
Push/extend my pinkie more so I can hold the bow more strongly without squeezing.
Pinkie strengthening exercises.
Push through my thumb while extending my pinkie for a strong shot and yugaedi.
Is the tip of my left thumb pointing up?
Keep my right thumb pointed at the target, not down.
Get my right hand as relaxed as possible, experiment!
On the release, give that last little burst with my chest, release with power. Make the release snap.
Keep my shoulders down.
Keep my elbows up properly all the way through uchiokoshi, don't need to perk my elbow up at the top and at dai san.
How high should I raise my bow? Am I raising it too high?
Get my pull to the right length, I'm pulling too far right now. Maybe narrow dai san some.
That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I'll think of a lot more things and run into even more in practice.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Econometric testing
I've been reading through a metrics text and thinking about traditional significance testing. One of the problems is that you can data mine your way to significance regardless of whether or not your actual theory explains what's happening. Other tests compare two different estimators to determine if one does a better job of modeling the data than another.
This got me thinking. How about starting with a theory, creating a model based on that theory and use your data to estimate the parameters of that function. Next, set that aside and throw raw statistics at your data set to find the best estimator (or a few best estimators, based on multiple criteria) to model that data, feel free to fold, spindle and mutilate as much as your heart pleases, use parametric and nonparametric estimators, whatever functional forms you can think of, whatever, just get a good R^2 and high p-values.
For example, you are trying to estimate a firm's production function with a large chunk of data on inputs, factor prices, costs, output, etc. Theory might lead you to believe the firm has a Cobb-Douglas production function of the form y = A*K^(p)*L^(1-p), and you use your data to estimate a, K, L, and P. Next, you pull out all the stops and try as many models as possible to use the data available to estimate y most accurately, regardless of the functional form or transformations necessary to get "good" results. This second model becomes your null hypothesis against which you test your Cobb-Douglas estimate on a new data set.
Finally, the real test is to take your theory-based model and your statistics-based models, and apply them to a new data set (preferable with at least some observations out of sample compared to what you created the original models with.) Accept your theory based model if it does a better job predicting the dependent variable than the purely statistical models, reject if it doesn't, and think carefully about it if you get a mixed bag of results. This would seem to cut down on type I errors, but would it give you more type II errors? I'm thinking it would act something like a traditional significance test, except we replace the null hypothesis of 0 with a null hypothesis of a data mined model, and I would think that the result would be somewhat more informative.
This got me thinking. How about starting with a theory, creating a model based on that theory and use your data to estimate the parameters of that function. Next, set that aside and throw raw statistics at your data set to find the best estimator (or a few best estimators, based on multiple criteria) to model that data, feel free to fold, spindle and mutilate as much as your heart pleases, use parametric and nonparametric estimators, whatever functional forms you can think of, whatever, just get a good R^2 and high p-values.
For example, you are trying to estimate a firm's production function with a large chunk of data on inputs, factor prices, costs, output, etc. Theory might lead you to believe the firm has a Cobb-Douglas production function of the form y = A*K^(p)*L^(1-p), and you use your data to estimate a, K, L, and P. Next, you pull out all the stops and try as many models as possible to use the data available to estimate y most accurately, regardless of the functional form or transformations necessary to get "good" results. This second model becomes your null hypothesis against which you test your Cobb-Douglas estimate on a new data set.
Finally, the real test is to take your theory-based model and your statistics-based models, and apply them to a new data set (preferable with at least some observations out of sample compared to what you created the original models with.) Accept your theory based model if it does a better job predicting the dependent variable than the purely statistical models, reject if it doesn't, and think carefully about it if you get a mixed bag of results. This would seem to cut down on type I errors, but would it give you more type II errors? I'm thinking it would act something like a traditional significance test, except we replace the null hypothesis of 0 with a null hypothesis of a data mined model, and I would think that the result would be somewhat more informative.
Friday, July 1, 2011
MN Government spending as a percent of GDP
Pulled data from MN's budget office and the BEA for GDP data. because the earlier data don't go back very far. The spending numbers don't match up with the usgovernmentspending.com site, but the MN budget info isn't clear, there are "general fund" spending and "all spending" sections, both of which are smaller than what the other site showed.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Evidence of Rational Criminals
As gas prices rise, it seems like every news source I see is talking about increases in drive offs from gas stations and stolen gas. This sounds like reasonably strong evidence of rational criminals: As the price of gas rises, people are substituting from "gasoline" to "stolen gasoline." Given the number of gallons sold, number of customers, number of gallons stolen, and number of thieves at each price per gallon, you could probably estimate a cross price elasticity for stolen gas relative to purchased gas. Prepay and pay-at-the-pump stations might be confounding factors. Hmmm, it might also be interesting to see see if the relative price of gas compared to other stations is more important than the absolute price of gas in determining how much is stolen. And does everyone who steals gas fill up completely (or steal more gas on average than paying customers buy)?
From that, you could also estimate the marginal criminal's estimate of the expected cost of stealing gas. Add in the fine for stealing gas and the likelihood of getting caught, you should be able to estimate how risk loving the marginal criminal is.
I'd love to get my hands on some numbers.
From that, you could also estimate the marginal criminal's estimate of the expected cost of stealing gas. Add in the fine for stealing gas and the likelihood of getting caught, you should be able to estimate how risk loving the marginal criminal is.
I'd love to get my hands on some numbers.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Finally someone talking about Excess Reserves
We've had, what, 3 explicit rounds of quantitative easing now, as well as other rounds of less advertised expansions of the monetary base since 2007 yet we've seen no real inflation. I hear a lot of people talking about the increased M1, but very few people talk about the cause of the missing inflation: Increased excess reserved held by banks most likely because the Fed is now paying interest on reserves. Carpe Diem has a great graph:
Finally there is some discussion of this factor, according to Carpe Diem the NY Fed has a paper out titled "Why Are Banks Holding So Many Excess Reserves?"
From their conclusion:
This sounds to me like the rounds of quantitative easing, then, were not so much aimed at stimulating economic output, but were instead intended to shore up banks. You increase liquidity, and you increase bank revenue streams without significantly impacting anything outside of the banking sector... Sounds pretty similar to TARP but with less obvious numbers.
I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet, but I'm curious to see how far off the mark I am. And if this doesn't make for a subsidy to banks, what was the point of increasing the currency base without increasing the interest rate or price level?
Finally there is some discussion of this factor, according to Carpe Diem the NY Fed has a paper out titled "Why Are Banks Holding So Many Excess Reserves?"
From their conclusion:
Paying interest
on reserves allows a central bank to maintain its influence over market interest rates independent
of the quantity of reserves created by its liquidity facilities. The central bank can then let the size
of these facilities be determined by conditions in the financial sector, while setting its target for
the short-term interest rate based on macroeconomic conditions. This ability to separate
monetary policy from the quantity of bank reserves is particularly important during the recovery
from a financial crisis. If inflationary pressures begin to appear while the liquidity facilities are
still in use, the central bank can use its interest-on-reserves policy to raise interest rates without
necessarily removing all of the reserves created by the facilities.
This sounds to me like the rounds of quantitative easing, then, were not so much aimed at stimulating economic output, but were instead intended to shore up banks. You increase liquidity, and you increase bank revenue streams without significantly impacting anything outside of the banking sector... Sounds pretty similar to TARP but with less obvious numbers.
I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet, but I'm curious to see how far off the mark I am. And if this doesn't make for a subsidy to banks, what was the point of increasing the currency base without increasing the interest rate or price level?
Intrafirm Coasian bargaining
There are some situations even within firms where one department will pay the costs of an activity and another will reap the benefits. I imagine this can lead to as inefficient outcomes as out in the world when people face externalities.
Take IT support, for example. Generally this is its own department, it is staffed and funded to provide support (and often the IT related capital equipment) for the rest of the company. In large part, the budget of this department is based upon the costs required to support the needs of the rest of the firm. This can be fairly straight forward: A helpdesk that fields N calls a day needs X operators to support the volume, etc.
But not all costs are directly passed through and who determines the level of support? Take vendor support contracts for example. The IT department often pays for that contract, but they have multiple options on the service level: Should they get 24x7 support with a 4 hour response time, or 8x5 support with next business day response time? The value of the different options are based on the section of the business being supported, but the people buying the contract don't have direct access to that information. How costly is it for a site to be down overnight? That depends not only on how much business that site does, but the hours of operation. Is 24x7 support really superior to 8x5 support when the site is only open 8am to 5pm Monday through Friday?
Questions like this might best be addressed in a Coasian light: In the support contract example, rather than have the IT department handle everything, let IT use their experience negotiating the contract but have the supported business unit pay for it. That pushes the cost of the support down to the group that actually gains value from its exercise.
And when the IT support staff has to pass on the bad news that users will be down for the next couple days because the support contract sucks, at least they can blame somebody else =)
Take IT support, for example. Generally this is its own department, it is staffed and funded to provide support (and often the IT related capital equipment) for the rest of the company. In large part, the budget of this department is based upon the costs required to support the needs of the rest of the firm. This can be fairly straight forward: A helpdesk that fields N calls a day needs X operators to support the volume, etc.
But not all costs are directly passed through and who determines the level of support? Take vendor support contracts for example. The IT department often pays for that contract, but they have multiple options on the service level: Should they get 24x7 support with a 4 hour response time, or 8x5 support with next business day response time? The value of the different options are based on the section of the business being supported, but the people buying the contract don't have direct access to that information. How costly is it for a site to be down overnight? That depends not only on how much business that site does, but the hours of operation. Is 24x7 support really superior to 8x5 support when the site is only open 8am to 5pm Monday through Friday?
Questions like this might best be addressed in a Coasian light: In the support contract example, rather than have the IT department handle everything, let IT use their experience negotiating the contract but have the supported business unit pay for it. That pushes the cost of the support down to the group that actually gains value from its exercise.
And when the IT support staff has to pass on the bad news that users will be down for the next couple days because the support contract sucks, at least they can blame somebody else =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)