If I go to the police evidince locker and pick up glawk fawty with the switch used in a drive-by and I put it in the hand of a biathlon athlete will he hit the target or will he spray the crowd? He'll still probably hit the target. He might be a little worse at it but the nature of the tool and the task it's optimized for isn't gonna fundamentally alter what happens because the goal is still the same, hit the target.

Both the US and China engage in copious amounts of "state intervention". They have different characteristics but it's fundamentally the same tool even if they're optimized differently. The US has no problem steamrolling people and interests, it just takes more time and money. At the behest of various interests I will not piss everyone off by naming and shaming because who they are is somewhat beside the point, the US has spend the past 50yr wielding state intervention in pursuit of policies that will kick out industrial activity at the margin. China has intentionally done essentially the opposite in the same time. Both have essentially accomplished what they set out to do.

Cheerleading for "more/cheaper/faster state intervention" is stupid when the goals being pursued are what's responsible for the lion's share of difference in outcome. Giving a glawk fawty to a biathlon athlete isn't gonna make him want to indiscriminately pepper the crowd any more than giving US policy more teeth to tear shit up is going to change the fact that the policy is pursuing de-industrialization.