Back in 1897, the USA did not have a central bank, and the index of manufacturing output was 53.0. But 16 years later, output had doubled, giving an average annual growth rate of 4.7%:
Those 16 years also involved sound money, because the USA was on a gold standard.
In 1972, the USA had a central bank, and the index of manufacturing output was 37.4. But 25 years later, output had doubled, giving an average annual growth rate of 3.1%:
These trends show that not having a central bank was good for manufacturing, because it grew 50% faster when there was no central bank. But critics and detractors would like to extend the later time series to capture the spurious boom in numbers after 1996:
But you can tell that that boom in manufacturing was artificial — related to central-bank-financed bubbles instead of to true productivity growth — because growth went flat after that (there has been no net growth in the US manufacturing sector since 2007).
The hard (manufacturing growth) evidence suggests that it is a good thing to not have a central bank but, if you have to have one, then it is good to avoid fiat currency and, instead, have the dollar pegged to gold (partially “tying the hands” of the central bank).
Reference
[US manufacturing before a central bank] — National Bureau of Economic Research, Index of Manufacturing Production for United States [A0107AUSA322NNBR], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A0107AUSA322NNBR
[US manufacturing after a central bank] — Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Industrial Production: Manufacturing (NAICS) [IPMAN], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IPMAN