This is a poorly supported take, once you factor in the productive parts of the economy.

If you have a lot of farmland in a red state and the profits are reported in a blue state, then counting the reported profits on the corporate balance sheet will give a distorted picture of what is happening.

Look at e.g. General Mills, based in a blue state, but a great deal of what they buy are ag inputs from red states.

> Look at e.g. General Mills, based in a blue state, but a great deal of what they buy are ag inputs from red states.

Are the businesses from who they buy ag inputs in the red states not compensated at market rates for the raw materials they provide?

Do the red states also not receive massive taxpayer funded farm subsidies for the corn and wheat they grow from the federal government?

Minnesota's GDP is higher because it has a larger population and a more diverse and greater value-added economy than it's its ag focused neighbors.

It's GDP per capita is actually lower than its very sparsely populated neighbor, North Dakota, but the economic power of a jurisdiction ultimately comes from its population*productivity.

Wouldn't the red states be profiting off of blue states in your example? Why would General Mill's purchase of red states' outputs not show up as profits in the red states? This makes no sense.

That is a good point.

But wouldn't the farm, selling to the big corp, realize the profits in their own state? Or are you saying the farms are owned by General Mills?

I was under the impression that most of the farms are owned separately and sell to General Mills.