But GDP is most certainly not a measure of wealth, and not doing it per capita makes no sense.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/gross-domestic-product

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth

Edit: GDP is more like income than wealth, and not per-capita makes no sense because the expense of welfare programs would be on a per-person basis.

I think the rationale for ignoring per-capita is that you're talking about the wealth of a "single entity", the US. And, well, yeah... ok, I guess (ignoring the fact that, as you point out, GDP is more like income than money in the bank).

I agree that looking at it that way is meaningless for the purposes of figuring out whose populace is the financially healthiest, but... that's what people do, for some reason.

All I'm saying is that's what people mean colloquially.

That's genuinely understandable. My worry is that it was true back in the days of the boomers, and it has been so ingrained in us that we didn't even notice it shifting, and now lack of awareness of this fact causes a kind of cognitive dissonance preventing us from fixing these issues, not least of which the OP.

We've squandered our wealth for ever-increasing cash flow, and by the time we're done I'm worried that the country will be a empty hulk.

That's nonsense, by that token India is far richer than Switzerland. That's simply not how 'wealthiest nation' is used in the colloquial sense.

For your meaning other terms would be used, e.g. saying India has a larger economy than Switzerland, or a larger market.