I mean your view would be that he is just making some pointless pedantic argument. He's well aware of existing metrics for all of those things. Let's give him more credit than that.

Ok but he's still essentially suggesting we create some more robust metric which does essentially the same thing but incorporates additional data points not representative in GDP in its current state.

I would say that he probably doesnt care if a more wholistic measurement of economic wellbeing is called "GDP", we do live in a world of dumb politicians and it might be easier just to make the measurement a better reflection of societal well being, without making politicians have to learn a new acronym.

But now you're suggesting we change a valuable metric simply because it doesn't do what people want it to do, which was what I said he was saying from the beginning.

It's not supposed to measure these things, so to change the measure to reflect "societal wellbeing" is like saying we should change the measure of federal deficit to better account for economic growth. Yeah, you can do that and people do (as a supplement), but now it's not just a deficit, and having the measure of strictly deficit also has benefits.

I guess my argument at this point is: all of this exists, as we agree on, so it's up to the individual to find it, not to have the component parts spoon fed to them in some likely arbitrary way.