Justice Monika Schmidt sentenced Jian Chen to three years and nine months of jail time. Her crime? Killing her former lover Xian Peng after lacing his soup with sleeping pills, tying him up for six hours, and then stabbing him repeatedly in the neck and groin and cutting off part of his penis which was then flushed down the toilet.
Chen thought he deserved it because she was under the impression that he was a conman sleeping around with women, having babies with them, as a way of controlling them.
And she only got three years and nine months. Damn you patriarchy!
I must be misunderstanding the word manslaughter, because drugging someone, tying them up, and stabbing them to death and sexually mutilating them is murder in my book. Like, really really messed up psycho killer murder. Did she not know that stabbing someone in the neck usually kills someone?
Imagine if the roles were reversed! What if a man thought a woman was a gold digger, sleeping around and having babies so she could collect alimony money, so he drugs her, cuts off her breasts, and stabs her in the throat and groin to death? What would happen? We would call for his head on a pike! This is a truly monstrous act!
I can only imagine that she got this special treatment because she's a woman. Where's the outrage, feminists? Where is it?
Modern feminism just comes off as really annoying to me. On most points I would agree with them on, they already have. It comes off as really preachy over issues that I normally consider to be of minor importance at best, while it ignores much more pressing issues for its own benefit. Congratulations, not only can you vote, but you have a lot of legal and social institutions in women's favor while still retaining all the social expectations of chivalry and not being drafted to go die in drafted wars, what more do you want?
Today, they do not try to fix discrimination by encouraging that the rights of all people be respected, but instead claim that a certain group is being discriminated against and that we need to be racist and prejudice towards a different group to "balance out" the discrimination the other group was receiving. They fixing discrimination by discriminating themselves, and will only stop discriminated once you learn discrimination is wrong.
Despite their so-called progressive ways, they still divide people up into groups. Attempts to celebrate diversity just continually push the mindset that we are different from those people. Are differences are great, so don't forget how different you are from people of other skin colors. We are all the same except that we are not.
You don't see that kind of bull when people talk about hair color. Why not? Don't they want to celebrate their diversity of hair colors? No, they don't, because no one cares. That's the beauty of it! To even accept the premise that this counts as "diversity" means you accept that these people are fundamentally and irrevocably different from one another.
For true harmony, individualism is not only the best way to counteract discrimination, but it is the only way. Only once we focus on and respect the rights of the individual, judging each person for their own merit, can we get past arbitrary distinctions like gender and race.
Now, I am mainly focusing on a specific strand of feminism known as Radical Feminism.
I am sure there are many of self-proclaimed feminists out there that are actually battling sexism and discrimination. It's no secret that women's rights in the Middle East is messed up. There are many, many entirely legitimate issues that feminists can complain about.
But tell me, honestly, when you think of feminists, do you think of someone fighting for the elimination of special privileges for men and women, or someone complaining about how men rule the world? That's what I thought. Today's feminists are not the feminists of the early 20th century. Radical feminism has taken it over by virtue of being more obnoxious.
I'll start off with the idea of patriarchy, the good and the bad. Patriarchy is essentially the idea of a male dominated society, that men are a privileged class, and that women are degraded. This has appropriate uses. For example, in a monarchy it is often tradition for the male heir to inherit the thrown, even if a female sibling is older or more capable. But as monarchies are a very common form of government anymore, this is not really what the modern feminist will be talking about.
Modern "patriarchy" looks nothing like this. Patriarchy isn't just a comment on a specific group, like the royal bloodline, that favor men over women. To feminists, patriarchy extends to all culture and they have learned to apply to every and any situation they disagree with it. It lurks behind every corner. Feminists don't talk about patriarchy as a comment on a specific situation, but as if it's some invisible force controlling society.
On a side note, where the hell is the joke?
In spite of this, women make up 57% of all bachelor's and 60% of all master degrees. Women vote more than men. Women can go into any field of study, any business, and it would be seen as normal. Women wearing pants instead of dresses and skirts no longer shocks the general public. But that's all part of the secret plan to keep the women down! After all, the best chains are the one's you can't see, right? Ha ha ha!
Patriarchy has turned into a conspiracy theory.
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.
But hold on there! What about the wage gap? Don't you know that for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes 75 cents? This appears to be true. If you add up the income of all women in the workforce and divide by the number of women, and then do the same process for men, you will find that women one average make 75% of what men make. But remember, there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
But do you not see anything odd about this? Personally, if I thought I could hire women to do the same job as a man, but I could pay her only 75% of what I would for a man, I'd hire the woman. Think of the profits! Screw patriarchy, I want to get rich!
If this was true, why aren't businessmen taking advantage of these huge savings? Do feminists simply believe that "the patriarchy" just isn't greedy enough?
What this simple statistic doesn't show you is that men and women make very different choices in where they work. Men are more likely to go into engineering while women are more likely to go into social sciences. So while men are making more money in the business world, women are in lower paying careers. This is not a form of discrimination, but a personal choice to pursue a less lucrative job. This comes from their choice.
Men and women also make different choices in how they work. Most men expect to be working full time for the rest of their lives, while women are more likely to leave at some point in their career to raise children, or at least want to leave an option open for that. Employers also need to consider this when choosing who to promote, since they don't want to lose good employees.
That's not even getting into the issues of overtime and the workplace danger. Obviously, there are plenty of rational, non-discrimination reasons men get a higher pay on average.
Just look at these male chauvinistic bastards.
Now, you might want to say that women are only making these choices because of the patriarchy. Women go into nurturing roles because that's the role given to them by society. But I don't really care about whether that's true or not. If you don't think enough women are going into the jobs you want, that's not my problem. I want to fight discrimination, not impose my personal values on other people. If you feel so bad about it, make your own choice on your own life.
And never mind that men are pushed away from the more social jobs towards a higher paying yet soul-crushing jobs because society expects them to be the bread-winners of the family. No, clearly women are the only ones being oppressed by gender roles.
But what about male privilege? Men get everything handed to them, while women have to work for everything they get. On a date, women always have to pick up the tab. Men can flirt their way out of speeding tickets while women always have to pay.
When there's a divorce, men take half of their ex's property and the children. And let's not forget that the woman is always expected to pay child support, when the woman might not have wanted the kid in the first place and the man lied about using protection. Men just treat women as their own personal piggy bank.
During a war, who is called first for a draft? Women. Women are considered disposable, dying on the battlefield while men sit around in safety back in their homes.
When the Titanic was sinking, it was men and children first, while the women are left to drown. Men set themselves first. How can anyone see this and not think men are the privileged gender? Down with the patriarchy that has driven women to make up 75% of suicides and 92% of occupational fatalities!
Of course, it's the other way around. Now, women of course have difficulties of their own and different expectations, but that's the whole point. Feminists will complain about a gender role they perceive as being placed on women, blame men for it, and totally ignore any role placed on men.
Even worse, they'll try to twist it around to make it about them, as if their privileges are actually insults. The women and children first rule shows that men consider women equivalent to children! Men don't consider women as strong and as capable as them, devaluing them to the level of children! So it's still part of patriarchy. It was all part of their clever plan of oppressing women by letting them live as they die.
Let me tell you, there are no feminist women on a sinking ship.
That's, like, the exact definition of a secondary victim.
Also, men have fathers and sons too, ya know.
These people clearly can't even tell the difference between bring privileged and being discriminated against. Why in the world should I listen to them on anything?
Now this has been quite long, yet I have so much more to say. I'll leave it with this though. Voltaire once said "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Watch the above video, and tell me if you really think society is based around patriarchy. Ask yourselves what would happen if the situation was reversed.
When governments establish things like rules, whether for national conventions or even a Constitution, they are mostly for show, and will be broken when they think they can get away with this. This has recently been proven with the Republican mistreatment of Ron Paul.
With the Republican National Convention just around the corner, the establishment is worried that people will see that Romney isn't unanimously liked and that the party is divided. Which it is. Ron Paul holds about 20% of the delegates.
To be nominated on the convention floor, a candidate must have at least 5 states supporting him. While this kicks out Gingrich and Santorum, it does not kick out Ron Paul, who holds Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Iowa, and Virginia. He did have Oregon and Louisiana, but the Republican has been working non-stop to strip Ron Paul of his rightful entitlements, breaking their own rules to keep him out.
After other attempts at changing the rules specifically to keep Paul out failed, the Republicans are trying to invalidate the state of Maine so that Paul will no longer hold his plurality.
Watch more about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnOSY8
I shouldn't be surprised, yet I always am. I call shenanigans.
"Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed...
[breaks glass and robots come to sweep it up] Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by creating a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business." - Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg, The Fifth Element
I mentioned the broken window fallacy in my last post on Paul Ryan, and thought it would be good to go over it a bit more here.
A shopkeeper's careless son breaks a window. The shopkeeper was upset by this, naturally, but whenever he talked to anyone about it they just said "That sucks, but what would happen to the glazier if no one ever broke windows?"
The shopkeeper must now pay six francs to the glazier to fix his broken window. This act of destruction has therefore encouraged trade. That's obvious, or as as Bastiat said, "that which is seen".
It is wrong, however, to say that breaking windows is a good thing, that it benefits society, and that it encourages economic growth, then you are ignoring "that which is not seen."
If the window had not been broken, the shopkeeper could have spent his money on something else such as shoes, and he would still have his window. All these things are not seen, and that's what has been lost.
This accident has kept the shopkeeper for improving his life, but instead must work to get back where he already was.
The moral of the story is, of course, that destruction destroys things. It very clearly shows the idea of an opportunity cost, that is, the cost of what the shopkeeper could have done with his time and resources. If breaking windows really helped the economy grow, how much more would economic good could we do if we destroyed the entire house instead? Or even the rest of the town?
This fallacy has sneaked into modern economic theories in many ways.
By inflating the money supply, the Federal Reserve "encourages investment" by making the dollar worth less and less, making people want to buy things.
Keynesian's so called "wartime prosperity" employs men and scarce resources so that they may be blown up while also blowing up the other countries men and scarce resources.
During the Great Depression, farmers were payed to not grow crops and kill excess livestock so that the price of food would go up under the Agricultural Adjustment Act while people were starving. Destroying crops not put food in people's bellies.
Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program bought up old cars with taxpayer money, then had those cars destroyed to encourage people to buy new cars.
Why, just a year ago Paul Krugman spoke of how faking an alien invasion would theoretically save the economy! These people are nuts!
"If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive build-up to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months.And then if we discovered, "whoops, we made a mistake," we'd [still] be better..." - Paul Krugman
Economic growth is no different than GDP to these people. Just a number on the screen. Spending, even wasteful spending, is what's important to them, and because of this flaw they miss the entire point of spending: Production. The purpose of the economy is the satisfaction of man's material desires by the production of goods and services.
"President Obama's reckless defense cuts that are hanging over our cloud, hanging over the horizon, could put almost 44,000 jobs at stake right here in Pennsylvania. We are not going to let that happen..." - Paul Ryan
First off, Obama has not cut our "defense" spending. He's expanded US presence in Afghanistan, he's followed Bush's timeline for Iraq, and let's not forget the whole thing with Libya and Uganda. Let's not forget that we're preparing to go to war with Iran. Like everything else, Obama has just followed Bush's policies, but increased the spending on it.
Secondly, military positions are not jobs, especially when their function is not even providing defense. War does not produce anything, war blows stuff up. War sends good, working age men to go die, and has the opportunity cost of them doing an actually productive job. War hurts the economy. I cannot stress that enough.
Thirdly, isn't Paul Ryan's big thing supposed to be that he's slashed the budget or whatever? Yeah, this guy seems like he's really anti-spending.
Paul Ryan is just another standard Keynesian, working with a standard Keynesian broken window fallacy.
A Christian woman named Dana Crow-Smith was handing out free water during in 112-degree Farenheit heat, but was ordered to cease and desist, as she did not have her proper permits, or else they would be cited.
This is a perfect example of how inefficient, horrifying, and ridiculous government intervention in the market can get. And do you know what will happen because of this? Absolutely nothing. She might get an apology with enough publicity, but there will be no serious change.
If we eliminated tedious paperwork, permits, and licenses, trying to control the economy, just gums up the free market. Reputation and accountability work better than any red tape. Government bureaucrats with no accountability will never match the efficiency and results of a voluntary private endeavors.
Let's talk about another one of the supposed great sins of capitalist greed: price gouging.
Price gouging is when someone, either a person or a group, raises their prices above the normal market price, specifically during times of emergency or disaster, such as a hurricane. People are able to do this if either the supply of some good has fallen, the demand of a good has skyrocketed, or both.
The accusation, then, is that these businesses are being exploitive. They are taking advantage of some poor situation to make "exorbitant" profits. After all, these people were just in a disaster, and these companies use this fact to take every last penny from these desperate people.
Now, price gouging has been outlawed in at least 13 states in the USA (http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-gouging/). Now price gouging is a bit tricky to prosecute since what price is considered "too high" is a bit hard to define. But it's all for the best, right? We're keeping those greedy capitalists from exploiting the poor. Why would we possibly want to allow that kind of behavior?
Well, even ignoring the property right and ethical issues of interfering with voluntary trade, for a few reasons. Trying to simply ban behavior we personally disapprove of almost always carries unintended consequences. Even during times of emergency, the laws of supply and demand still hold true, and allow things to be the most allocatively efficient (i.e. providing goods and services to where they are most needed in society).
In a disaster, the price of a certain good commonly seen as a necessity is kept at it's normal price instead of the higher "price gouging" price. Let's say... food. Now, despite having a low supply of food, it's still as cheap as ever. People easily go, pick up as much food as they want, and return home. People are not treating food as scarce as it truly is because there is no price signal telling them how scarce it is. Artificially keeping these prices low encourages people to be wasteful, and stops them from asking themselves how desperately they need a certain item.
Also, outside companies have less of a motivation to find how to access this community. If they could charge higher prices, that would attract their businesses. But now, why bother? If the prices are the same, one town's as good as another. If there weren't any price gouging laws, then maybe the increased supply brought in by outside sources could have even brought the price back down, but now that will not happen.
Outlawing price gouging not only stops people from being thrifty and conservative in their choices, but it also hinders outside motivation to bring the item to where it is most desperately needed. This does not fix the problem, it is merely an attempt to deny the reality of this situation and hoping that everything will play out as normal. We are not making prices fair, but making prices lie.
If you really feel sympathetic for people in a disaster, which most people do, we should not simply just tell our government to pass a law to force other people to "fix" the problem. That's just laziness on our own part. Donate to one of the inevitable charity relief that form for these kind of events, or better yet, help out yourself. But don't try to interfere with the voluntary interactions of others.
It's funny how government criminalizes it's own actions on a regular basis, isn't it? Not to mention that they were his own calls and that the people he was talking to were public officials with no expectation of privacy.
Caring for the poor is a popular position. If someone brands themselves as anti-poor, they are not likely to make many friends. Because of this, governments have issued many things that they label "pro-poor" legislation. And if you hate this, you must by extension hate the poor.
Of course whenever a politician speaks of being charitable, they do not mean themselves. Welfare states are not paid for out of the pockets of politicians. This is not charity, and you are not made a good person by supporting it.
But hey, maybe it does some good. People shouldn't expect to keep everything they earn with their sweat and blood, right? Well, not really. Let's look at one example: the minimum wage.
The minimum wage is a move for fairness, right? It keeps workers from being exploited, and guarantees them a decent living wage! We're stopping those greedy rich people from exploiting the poor.
Well, let's look at the root of this issue. Before the minimum wage, it was not like people were being enslaved. Rich people did not gather up the poor off the street, force them into buildings, and make them work for so little. These people voluntarily chose to work in this state. Because of self-ownership, I have a right to sell my labor for any price that I want. I could put my expected ridiculously high, or ridiculously low. That's my right. My body, my labor, my rules. Trying to set a minimum wage is not stopping exploitation, it's simply stopping voluntary exchange, which is our right to decide, not theirs.
They claim ownership of your labor, because you're too stupid to know what you're supposed to sell your labor for. And don't you dare go against our orders. The minimum wage is patronizing.
On top of being fundamentally morally flawed, the minimum wage has practical issues as well. What made us think that these people were really "exploiting" workers before? Why are most people paid above the minimum wage? Shouldn't these greedy businessmen just drop all jobs to minimum wage price so that they could get more money?
Like most things in economics, this gets back to supply and demand. Companies want to attract the best workers they can from other businesses. To do this, they offer things like higher wages, working conditions, and other benefits. To be able to buy labor, employers need to offer good things in return.
There is also the problem of eliminating jobs. Let's use an extreme example to show this flaw. What would be wrong with raising the minimum wage to $1000 an hour? The poor with jobs would certainly be a lot better off! But that's exactly the problem. The poor wouldn't have jobs. No one is going to hire someone else at a loss.
To illustrate this, lets look at two examples. In the picture below, Bob's work produced $10 profit and he was paid $8 per hour, leaving his employer with $2 profit. Now if the minimum wage was raised to $9.00 per hour, Bob would get a $1 pay rise. His employer would see that he could still make $1 profit from Bob's labor, and therefore will keep him. The minimum wage benefits Bob, at the expense of his employer who had previously paid market price for Bob's labor.
But Simon, in the picture below, is not so lucky. His job only produced $4 an hour. If his employer were to continue to hire him, he would be losing $5 per hour. Simon's job is simply not profitable any more, and he will be fired. And to make matters worse, since Simon probably has low skills, it will most likely be extremely hard for him to find work somewhere else, as other businesses will likely face the same unprofitable problem.
The poorest of the poor, the ones most desperate are the ones truly hurt by the minimum wage. We eliminate the best changes these people have to improve their lives. We turn our backs on the most needy. Those low paying jobs would be crap, certainly, but they could have provided valuable experience and allowed the poor to more effectively rise out of their situation.
This is why a minimum wage is often said to remove the steps from the economic ladder.
Now, I can understand how many people might take pity on those less fortunate than themselves. I really do, and I feel the same way. But the best way to solve their problem is not to dictate to them what they can and cannot sell something at. Without outside intervention, free markets are fantastic at equilibrating. If labor is cheap somewhere or there is high unemployment, that low priced labor attracts businesses. And as more businesses come into the market, wages go up as people compete more and more for labor. Unemployment levels drop because the cheap labor attracts new businesses and new jobs. That's what helps the poor.
Trying to interfere in this voluntary exchanges just messes things up.
You must understand that we live in a post 9/11 world. And that means you have lost all your rights. You are now guilty until proven innocent. Wait, scratch that, you are guilty until the government says your innocent. That's why it's so important that the government has the power to imprison someone as long as they want without charge or trial. Thank you, Obama. Thanks for your wonderful change.
It's true, there is nothing quite as wonderful as money. A man can only produce so many things on his own, but thanks to money he can obtain things he never could have on his own. Money allows us access to the production of others without the use of coercion.
But to best understand this, we need to know how the economy works, at the most basic level. As the creation of matter ex nihilo is beyond our mortal grasps, we are faced with the problem of scarcity. Not everyone can use the same thing. Everyone can not stand on the same spot, they can't eat the same food, nor can we own the same property. To be able to survive, man must collect resources. To thrive, man must improve upon these resources. This is why property rights are so important.
Now there are a lot of theories on property that I will not bring up here. But given that you have property, what then? What if someone else has something you want?
There are two methods of obtaining this item. There is the involuntary way, whereby the item is stolen or the person is threatened into handing it over. This is the method of criminals and politicians. Then there is the voluntary means, whereby the other people freely gives you the item.
But this usually is not out of the goodness of that person's heart. Normally, this is done by trade. Trade is when you offer something to that person in return for whatever they offer you.
The most basic form of trade is the bartering system. This is the simplest and most direct means of trading. If you've ever traded a Pokemon card, you should understand how this works. You offer one good or service to a person in return for another good or service. It's a very simple concept.
But there is a basic flaw in this system. Not everyone values your stuff as much as you do, or as another person might. One person might be willing to trade you a lot of stuff for fish, while another person wouldn't want fish at all. To be able to trade with this person, I would have to discover what he wants, and then track down someone else who has that item and hope that they like my apples more than the first guy did so that I can trade with him. As I'm sure you can imagine, this heavily limits the number of people you can trade with.
This is where money is invented. Money, in the most basic sense of the word, is a commonly used medium of exchange. This means that whatever is being used as money is something most people consider valuable. So instead of directly trading my apples with the person who wants them, I sell them for money and then use that money to purchase the item.
This money could be anything. It could be corn, dried fish, shells, alcohol, goats, salt, whatever. As long as it was commonly valued and tradeable, it works. But by far the most practical and universally accepted item has been silver and gold.
Gold and silver, silver and gold.
Both were, and still are, considered precious metals. They are rare enough to be highly valued, but common enough that it could be commonly used in trade. Not only that, they both melt at relatively low temperatures and therefore can be shaped into different shapes, like coins.
Thus, humanity naturally established a common medium of exchange. Eventually though, as bigger purchases needed to be made, carrying around around the actual pieces of gold became very costly, being both heavy and leaving it open to be stolen by thieves. So what happened was the money was put into a bank. The bank would give you what effectively works out to be an I.O.U. for however many pieces of gold you deposited into the bank. So instead of trading the actual pieces of gold, people just traded the I.O.U.'s. This is how paper money was invented.
But people became greedy. Governments began switching over to something called legal tender and establishing a fiat currency. This is what every country in the world uses today. Instead of your money being valuable because it is tied to something that is generally considered inherently valuable, such as gold, governments now just print pieces of paper, point a gun to your head and demand that you treat it like gold. You are legally required to accept dollars as payment. That's why all United States dollars are marked "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE".
This is what people mean when they say a currency is "backed by a government's name". It's not backed by something considered genuinely valuable, like gold, but is instead backed up by the gun of the government.
The world today is not running off of real money, but something that has been imposed on us against our will. This gives government a dangerous power over people, opening us to the governments manipulation of the economy and its theft via inflation. This currency is weak, and when times get hard, people will abandon the dollar in what is known as a "flight into real values".
And that's essentially what money is, how it works, and why we do not have it today.
In today's economy, banks essentially deal in the business of buying and selling money.
When you put your money in a bank, they are buying that money off of you and offering interest in return. Similarly, when you accept a loan from a bank, you are buying money from them and they charge you interest. Because of this, the interest rate banks charge is essentially the money's price, and like all things that are sold, is subject to supply in demand.
If they have a low supply of money, they have a high price (high interest rate), and if they have a high supply of money, they have a low price (low interest rate). This is very important and acts as a price signal to tell people when it's time to save, and when it's time to invest.
If the interest rate is high, people want to sell their money to the bank and deposit their savings there. And if the interest rate is low, then people want to buy money from the bank to start up new businesses.
This is also beneficial because this tells entrepreneurs that there are savings in the bank, and once their new product or service is on the market, there will be people with plenty of money to buy it. Not only is that the cheapest time to invest, it is also the most appropriate time to invest.
So again, put more simply, a bank that has a:
1. Low supply of money = Wants to attract savers = high interest rate
2. High supply of money = Wants to attract entrepreneurs = low interest rate
But then we get a problem.
Arrogant politicians and economists come in and establish themselves as a Central Bank. This is a kind of super-bank that is meant to steer the economy and has the ability to print currency.
Thinking themselves smarter than the free market, they manipulate these interest rates to where they believe the economy will be stimulated. Because fiat currency (money that is valued not because it is tied to some kind of standard like gold, but is legally mandated to be valued) is easy to print, this Central Bank has as much money to lend out as it can print.
So at one point this Central Banks sets their own interest rate unnaturally low, which it does easily and happily, since it can have a high supply simply by printing money, it falsely believes it's stimulating the economy, it wants to exert control debt, etc. It could be any of those reasons, and is most commonly some combination of them. The point is, banks quickly buy up the new cheap money.
So now that the banks have a high supply of money, they set a low interest rate of their own. Those looking for loans, naturally, love this. But this new money has been confused with real loanable funds, backed by savings, when it is really just inflation. This easy money leads to a short time of prosperity, as people and businesses can get cheap loans very easily. Prices drop and risky investments get funded. This is known as an economic "boom". Oh, and this boom proves to the Central Bank that they successfully stimulate the economy.
But this boom cannot last forever. People are consuming without the savings to back it, and soon enough they are grasping for resources that just aren't there, and were never there to begin with. This along with the failure of some riskier investments that would not have been funded in a free market (malinvestment) at the worst possible time leads to a bust. In worse cases, this leads to a bank run, where everyone panics and demand their money from a bank at once. Of course, since the banks loan out a good portion of your money, they don't have it all, leading to the bank collapsing.
The Central Bank that wanted to improve the economy ends up inevitably wrecking it. And with the general idea that we need to increase spending to get out of this bad economy (i.e. quantitative easing, bailouts, stimulus packages, etc.), we end up damning ourselves even further. A true market needs to be backed by real savings. Only after that can we have spending, investment, and true, safe, growth.
Also, don't forget that because the Central Bank is giving itself free money, it is causing inflation and devalues the dollar, which essentially works out as a tax on you, since your money is worth less and less now that they gave themselves money for free. So yeah, enjoy that.
For more on the problems of a central bank, and to see where I got those cartoon pictures, it is from a 30 minute video called "The American Dream".
Here's a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExBE651_vOY&feature=plcp
Here's a link to their site: http://www.theamericandreamfilm.com/index.php
