. @Noahpinion says Matt Yglesias has written a book about *how* America can compete with China without explaining *why*:

That's a significant omission because the reasons really matter. To borrow a line from @shifrinson, one common argument is the Ricky Bobby defence - if you're not first, you're last. America needs to be number one because...well, just because.

Needless to say, that's not a very satisfying argument. Some other common arguments:

1. We need to do it for our allies in Asia: this is backwards; America forged those alliances for its own protection, not the other way around.

2. Economics: if we don't lead in Asia, we will get shut out of the biggest market in the world. But really, is this plausible? Can the US shut China out of the American market, or out of Canada and Mexico?

3. Geopolitics: China is a direct threat to the US homeland.

How? America is surrounded by friends to the north and south, vast oceans east and west, the world's most powerful military, and thousands of nuclear weapons.

4. US needs to defend the rules-based order.

Maybe, but how important is the RBO to the US? If it requires a massive re-armament program and a new Cold War against the world's biggest economy, is that worth it?

Harsh truth for America's Asian allies and partners is that they have a bigger stake in maintaining US hegemony in Asia than the US itself does.

Returning to Yglesias, whose book says the US needs to grow to 1b population to compete with China: I doubt the argument for the US to do this really stacks up, but for Aus, the case for high population growth is much stronger. (NB. I have not read the Yglesias book)