Gross domestic product (GDP) was never designed to be a measure of societal well-being. It tracks only market transactions, conflates costs and benefits, and ignores the distribution of income, the contributions of household labour and volunteer work, and social and environmental costs and benefits.
In the decades after the Second World War, GDP growth functioned as a reasonable proxy for well-being when rebuilding economies and increasing production and consumption were the main priorities. However, since about 1950, which some call the Anthropocene era, ecological limits, inequality and declining social cohesion have restricted further improvements in well-being...
Measuring and modelling what truly matters, not just market transactions, is now essential. Processes are under way to develop indicators that move beyond GDP. In May, the United Nations secretary-general António Guterres appointed a High-Level Expert Group to develop such measures, with a focus on balancing economic, social and environmental dimensions of well-being. This initiative builds on the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): target 19 of SDG17 commits governments to adopt beyond-GDP metrics by 2030.
Most "economic indicators" are politically manufactured bullshit designed to mislead and control. GDP is among the worst.
Source? The article you linked is quite nice, but your claim here sounds like conspiracy theory bullshit.
There is nothing wrong with gdp as a measure when it is used appropriately in an appropriate context. And gdp has a lot going for it - namely, it is already an agreed upon standard; because it is the standard, a lot of modelling for other things and scientific research is based on it; it is easy to compare across different times and contexts; it is reasonably objective; it is relatively easy data to collect. It's a great example of how sometimes getting the job done right is less important than getting the job done right now.
The article is correct that we need a better measure for how well a nation or region is doing generally. Using gdp for this task is a bit like using vice grips to tighten and loosen bolts - it more or less gets the job done in a pinch, but it shouldn't be a long term strategy.
But I feel like the article misses the mark when it fails to mention that gdp is a favored metric for other reasons. Eg, policymakers may like to use the metric publicly to tout the public good. But a better use for it is comparing geopolitical economic power - something policymakers care about a lot. As stated in the article, it has been difficult to dethrone gdp. I think if that is the goal, a reasonable starting point is to acknowledge the actual reasons gdp is popular, and address those.