The phrase "actual gdp" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in economic discussions to refer to the real gross domestic product, which measures the value of all goods and services produced in a country, adjusted for inflation.
Example: "The actual GDP of the country has shown significant growth over the past year, indicating a robust economic recovery."
Alternatives: "real GDP" or "inflation-adjusted GDP".
This means that their projected total emissions goals may change based on actual GDP growth.
FRED now makes it easy to compare potential GDP, as estimated by the CBO, with actual GDP; data here.
Start with the CBO estimates of potential GDP, which can be subtracted from actual GDP to estimate the output gap.
The latter is the percent difference between actual GDP and potential GDP, which is what GDP would be if the economy were running on full steam.
First, express spending as a share of potential rather than actual GDP; we can use the CBO estimates of potential for that purpose.
What we've really lost here is the trillions in output between potential GDP (how the economy would have done absent the recession) and actual GDP.
However, as a further robustness check, we also reestimate equation 1 using the change in the ratio of total real expenditure to actual real GDP.
What do we get if we plot this estimated austerity against the actual change in real GDP 2009 to 2011?
The Hall approach is to compare changes in real defense spending as a percentage of the previous year's GDP with the actual percentage growth in real GDP.
He begins by taking the actual growth rate in real GDP per head between 1987 and 2007 (1.8% annually) as his starting point, which is not unfair.
GDP has fallen sharply relative to the economy's potential; here's the ratio of real GDP to the CBO's estimate of potential GDP: A 6 percent fall in GDP relative to trend, all by itself, would have raised the ratio of spending to GDP from 19.6 to 20.8, or about 30 percent of the actual rise.
