wineboyrider said:In reference to GDP being meaningless due to "Current debauchery", assuming you mean currency, there's this thing called 'Real GDP' that accounts for inflation.
As Mises explained in his essay "Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy":
"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion is that there is no term left to signify the cause of this rise in prices and wages. There is no longer any word available to signify the phenomenon that has been, up to now, called inflation. . . . As you cannot talk about something that has no name, you cannot fight it. Those who pretend to fight inflation are in fact only fighting what is the inevitable consequence of inflation, rising prices. Their ventures are doomed to failure because they do not attack the root of the evil. They try to keep prices low while firmly committed to a policy of increasing the quantity of money that must necessarily make them soar. As long as this terminological confusion is not entirely wiped out, there cannot be any question of stopping inflation."
What word, then, you would suggest would reflect the total sum of a basket of good's average price increase, whose influenced by things like money supply('proper inflation'), energy supply, material supply and demand "supply"(The amount of demand)? Ultimately, I care about my "buying power", which is not a 1-1 relationship with the money supply.
If we look at the money supply, according to wikipedia,

It looks like the M2 was roughly 8.5 billion at the beginning of 2010 and 4.6 billion in 2000. That implies a total increase of 87% in the money supply over the past decade. Hmmmm.... looking at that, it seems the CPI understates the inflation by quite a bit. But is that an accurate measure of the inflation? If production has become less "costly", then goods would become "cheaper" which would partially counteract the expansion of the money supply. But does that even make sense?