@ Kapitein Andre

1) What has the subject of 'European' financial regulations got to do with German exports of goods (cranes) and services (operating - presumably technologically advanced - cranes)?

2) "Neoliberal economists" have it correct about trade with China, but NOT for the reason that you cite.  They have it correct because trade is beneficial to BOTH sides.  Virtually every euro the Chinese earn by exporting to euroland, MUST or WILL return to euroland, either in the form of exports of goods and services from euroland or in the form of capital provision to euroland.  And vice versa, every yuan the Germans or other eurolanders earn in China will return to China in the form of either Chinese exports or capital imports.

3) Your idea that "greater wealth and income encourage democratic reform" is an opinion, or it is perhaps wishful thinking, but it certainly is not a fact.  There is empirical evidence either way.  For example, India might have many problems, and is certainly still poorer than China today, but it is a genuine democracy (as measured by the criteria of 'power alternation' and 'freedom of political speech'), whereas China remains a totalitarian state.  The faster economic growth in Germany in the 1930's than in neighbouring countries did not lead to "democratic reform", etc....  

Expert opinion on China is divided.  Some belief that eventually a social explosion or revolution will be inevitable.  Others, like you perhaps, believe in a peaceful transition to wealth-induced 'democracy', thereby negating 4000 years of Chinese history and 'nationalism'.   I believe in a third option, namely 'enduring authoritarianism', because China-experts tell me that the Chinese 'intellectual elite' (not necessarily the communist party apparatshiks) are more interested in Chinese nationalism than in 'democracy' (individual freedom).  This is dangerous, because history tends to show that when a power monopoly in a large/strong country comes under pressure, the power monopolist  (whether a ruler or a party politbureau) will try to retain popular 'legitimacy' through (nationalistic) foreign adventures, when things get (economically) difficult. 

Only time will tell.  But it behoves to separate opinions from facts.

Some 80% of the construction cranes used in China's building boom are owned and operated by German companies. Unfortunately, Rachman does not define what these so-called "European regulations" are. Are they merely unnecessary taxes and bureaucratic 'red tape,' or are they ethical requirements relating to labour standards, etc...

The neoliberal economists have it correct that it is better to trade with China, despite its distasteful regime, than not, for greater wealth and income encourage democratic reform. Those countries cut out of the trading loop, such as Revolutionary Iran, North Korea, Communist Cuba, and Ba'athist Iraq, remain 'distasteful,' except that the people now bear the added burden of economic sanctions.

However, at the end of the day, China remains a fascist state beneath a communist facade. While trade and investment benefit both the West and the Chinese people, there is great room for abuse, whether by exploiting the Chinese, supporting their government with bribes, etc., or both. And it is important that the West has the trust of the Chinese people, for when democratic change reaches the political realm, we would not want a vengeful nationalist China looking to punish those who collaborated with its former oppressors.