You can also make the opposite argument by pointing out China's growth only really got started with Deng's market liberalization reforms, which did the opposite of what you described.
In other nations where the governments don't take these proactive role, people are at the mercy of market forces for everything, including basics needed for survival.
Topic on how governments can make money via global trade is a different thread of discussion. This one pertains on how the public sector can/should use their power to empower the underprivileged.
Governments investing on critical infrastructure, and basic services that give a foundation of opportunity is a precondition to growth led by industrialization/trade.
This thread is about how the governments can use their money and power to uplift the underprivileged, and not about mechanisms for the government to make money. It is a conversation on leaving the poor to "market forces" vs. governments ensuring basics to the impoverished.
So virtually all of the poverty alleviation has happened when governments have prioritized access to basics (housing, education, healthcare, public transport, pensions, wage regulations, utilities like power/water/sewerage, etc) to the common people rather than leave it up to "market forces".
Institutions that represent the interests of people using state budgets for inclusive policy have a much bigger role in poverty alleviation, by creating an environment of fair opportunity for the poor, than explicit deregulation/privatization.
Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...