That's circular reasoning. You're defining "success" as "line go up" and then saying we made the "line go up" therefore we were successful. If you define success as GDP per capita, then sure, the countries with the highest GDP per capita won. However, even by other flawed metrics, such as Real GDP with purchasing power parity taken into account, India and Russia are also top of the list[1]. Even this metric is flawed, though, because humans are complicated and GDP != happiness or success.
Any single number is worthless for comparing quality of life, per capita or not. How do you use a number to take into account the fact that some people don't have access to healthcare in the US or "freedom" in Russia?
My point isn't that GDP per capita is the end-all-be-all of quality of life metrics. It's that pointing out that Russia and India are at the top of the GDP list, and therefore GDP per capita (your previous comment seems to conflate the two) is a flawed metric, is such a poor argument that you're not giving the pro-GDP side a fair shake and possibly misrepresenting their argument. No "line goes up" or "GDP = quality of life" proponent thinks India has high quality of life because their country level GDP tops the list.
Pick any measure you like. Free markets are the most prosperous.
> India and Russia
Do you really think their standard of living is higher than the US? Why is Seattle full of Russian and Indian immigrants? Why do you think zillions of immigrants are coming to the US? Because the US is a hellhole?
> GDP != happiness or success.
If you're happier being poor, just give away all your stuff to your favorite charity. Nobody is forcing you to be prosperous.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purcha...