Central banks CAN bring stability if managed correctly, but they are also run by people who bring biases into the process.
The first 'central banks' were not really truly central banks. They were merely a means for the federal government to hold federal dollars without having to utilized state banks. The view of the early founders and their immediate heirs was that banking was a state issue, not federal. But state banks were notoriously unstable and often went under taking citizens money with it. There was so little regulation.
The FED has two overt mandates: Control inflation and implement monetary policy to facilitate full employment. Another key aspect of the FED which isn't really an overt mandate is to offer liquidity as a "lender of last resort.'
Now, regarding the Panic of 1907, I regard this as more like our recent collapse in 2010 than the Great Depression. But underlying how the nation recovered from the Panic of 1907 is the reason we NEED a central bank. The economy collapsed. JP Morgan got several of the most wealthy men in America into a room and literally locked the doors and said no one was leaving until they solved the Panic. These dozen or so uber-wealthy guys literally used their wealth to provide the liquidity and back the banking system up so the economic crisis could abate.
Do we really want to depend on the Bezos of the nation to bail out the country from another crisis?
Remember too that the FED was created under the mindset of economists captured by the gold standard. Their operation of banking, the economy and the FED were underpinned by this monetary theory of classical economics. Even Keynesian theory is underpinned by gold standard although Keynesian approach is more applicable to budgetary applications by Congress rather than monetary management. The response to the Great Depression was indeed faulty and in large part due to the managers of the FED who were captured by classical (gold standard) economics. They simply didn't realize the tools they had at their disposal as well as the fact that even with a FED our system was tied to gold. Bernanke understood this very well in 2010 and the response to the Great Recession was managed with the failures of 1929 well in mind.
The "too big to fail" element in our economy is NOT due to regulation but rather LACK of such regulation. Regulation does not strangle and indeed DOES temper risks. We saw that for decades under the Glass-Steagall Act. As soon as that regulatory regimen was eliminated in the 1990s we had more than one financial crisis including the Great Recession of 2010!
The FED is not a 'manager of the markets' at all. It is not comprehensible why you claim that. The FED manages the money supply, not markets.
Looking at the section in your article about "corporations sticking around" comes across, frankly as pure gibberish and unrelated to a discussion about the Federal Reserve.
A complaint about short term thinking vs long term may be valid but you offer NO suggestions or solutions which would support your assertion of that short vs long term approach
