Economic forecasts increasingly hinge on the notion of uncertainty, as highlighted by the latest report from the AIReF, Spain's fiscal authority, which lowered its GDP growth projection by two-tenths to 2.3%.

The decrease reflects a realization that prior expectations were overly optimistic, particularly influenced by the commercial policies of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

A concept gaining traction in discussions around this backdrop is 'geonomics', which can be loosely translated to 'geoeconomics'.

This term encapsulates the strategic use of economic power by political entities to achieve desired global outcomes.

While not a new idea, its relevance has surged amid ongoing geopolitical shifts.

In a recent column, journalist Gillian Tett noted that the mechanisms of geonomics diverge sharply from the 20th-century intellectual framework of free-market economics.

This traditional paradigm, rooted in the theories of economist David Ricardo, posited that countries specialize in production where they hold a comparative advantage, facilitating smoother international trade relations.

Ricardo’s principle, first articulated in his seminal work 'Principles of Political Economy and Taxation', advocated for free trade as a pathway to mutual benefit amongst nations.

However, the current trajectory reveals a return to economic nationalism.

Scholars have recently revisited the works of German economist Albert Hirschman, particularly his analysis of how nations have historically curtailed imports in efforts to achieve self-sufficiency.

Hirschman’s perspectives were informed by the autarkic policies experienced during Spain's past economic isolation and earlier protectionist trends, notably in the 1930s.

In practical terms, the recent trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom typifies this new approach to international commerce.

Notably, this deal maintains minimal tariffs of 10% and imposes restrictions on British trade with China, underscoring the geopolitical dimensions underpinning economic relations in a contemporary context.

This stipulation aims to prevent the transshipment of Chinese components into the U.S. via UK exports, thereby compelling London to closely scrutinize its export companies.

A recent World Bank report has termed this phenomenon the 'Economics of Power', suggesting that traditional multilateral trade systems, which have withstood various upheavals over the past 75 years, are now confronted with complex geopolitical challenges.

The shift towards geoeconomics is marked by increasing state intervention in global trade arenas, deviating from longstanding free-trade norms.

The discourse surrounding these economic transformations is further complicated by contrasting ideologies within the discipline itself.

David Ricardo's classical economics has influenced both contemporary neoclassical frameworks and the socialist theories pioneered by Karl Marx.

Marx's critique of capitalism, once considered a heterodox view in the West, remains foundational to the economic strategies employed by China today.

Michael Roberts, a Marxist economist and former analyst in London, has contended that traditional views of international trade as equitable and fair are illusory.

He posits that sustained competition among unequal nations has perpetuated structural imbalances in global trade since its inception.

Roberts argues that the solutions proposed by contemporary policymakers, including those from Trump's administration, merely reflect the interests of domestic capital that struggle to compete internationally.

The underlying economic architecture, largely dependent on financial yields, poses significant barriers to reindustrialization in the U.S., which he asserts must rely on increased productivity and investment methodologies rather than mere tariff adjustments.

Academic perspectives, such as those from Joaquín Arriola of the University of the Basque Country, emphasize the challenges inherent in shifting investment patterns towards industrial sectors.

Arriola notes that for sustained economic change to materialize, capital must be mobilized that is willing to endure lower returns in the short term in anticipation of future gains.

This complex landscape serves as a testament to the multifaceted interplay between economics and politics in an era marked by geopolitical tension and economic uncertainty.