According to Ding，government institutions should attach more importance to drafting laws，monitoring operations and providing services，while leaving the rest to the market.
"The market serves as the lever to decide whether a certain enterprise rises or falls.Therefore it is not necessary for the Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC)to intervene too much.
"For instance，I do not suppose it is proper for the CSRC to regulate clear-cut Price Earning (PE)Ratios".
"If a company is promising，investors will rush to buy its shares even if its market-determined PE ratio is quite high."
As to the government's function as watchdog and service provider，Ding suggested that a complete and standardized stock trading system was desperately needed.
He said that in China only two markets existed，and the game rules were relatively poor.He suggested the authorities devote more effort to strengthening and enriching the existing share trading structure.
When asked why specialization was important for an efficient and effective stock market，Ding turned again to his experience in America.
"It is true that in the United States almost every citizen gets involved in the stock market，but unlike the situation in China，most of them do not buy or sell shares by themselves -instead they get the job done by their agents."
To become a qualified stock agent，one had to pass many tests and exams involving both expertise and professionalism，Ding said.
However，in China "too many people are doing a job they do not really know，"he said .
In the 1980s Ding obtained all the certificates and licenses requited for all the sock markets across the United States -above and beyond average brokers.
In talking about his achievement，Ding could not help showing signs of pride.
"Maybe I am a little bit sharp in understanding and comprehension，but what benefited me most is the spirit of step-by-step in academic research and practical working，"Ding said.
Lack of practical spirit was another reason the Chinese market may be strained he said."In such an immature market，too much short-sighted action will do great harm.And the top priority is to clarify the basic concepts and to follow the international format as much as possible."
When Ding returned to China in the 1990s，he was surprised to find that the nation's first two stock markets were mistakenly titled "Shanghai /Shenzhen Securities Exchange Market."
"Just as primary security，'stock'does not refer to the same concept as'securities'do.
"Now the English version has been revised because of my insistence，but the Chinese one still remains.
In another instance，Ding asserted that，internationally speaking，the Growth Enterprises Market could not be called a second board.
"Maybe I am too picky，but China should adopt a serious attitude to define these basic jobs，especially when the market is underdeveloped，"Ding advised.
Born in Xian in Northwest China's Shanxi Province，and now a resident of Canada，Ding after graduating from the Beijing Foreign Studies University chose to seek further overseas education in 1981 when few people nationwide knew what the abbreviation "MBA"(Master of Business Administration)stood for.
When asked how he could make such a farsighted decision at that time，Ding said that he was the kind of person who could sit down and plan the future.
"But I am not a fortune teller or a prophet，"he joked.
"I only make judgments based on facts，and forecast the future by abiding by the objective principle of development"
Though not possessing any magic power，Ding was right on the money when making predictions on several big events in the financial market.
In 1993 when the newborn futures markets were madly chasing capital，Ding wrote letters to the then Vice Premier Zhu Rongji advising that blind and overheated development of the markets must be halted.
Ding was the only adviser to stand against the tide，and was eventually proved right.
And in 1996，when the stock market rocketed to unprecedented heights，Ding warned of a crash，and took a positive role in preventing the calamity from happening before Hong Kong's return to the motherland.
第八节自然规律根本不是弱肉强食，
平衡才是自然规律
核心提示：
自然规律是弱肉强食是人类对大自然的偏见，人类以此为行为准则，死路一条！看起来人类在征服地球，其实是不堪一击，当外界的东西不能发挥作用时，人类将陷入极度混乱。人类的做法是极度贪婪、极度透支地球的承受力及后代的利益，这样得不偿失。
平衡是自然规律，弱肉强食是人类对大自然的偏见
自然规律是弱肉强食是人类对大自然的偏见，人类以此偏见为行为准则，从而导致人类陷入困境，反过来证明弱肉强食不是大自然规律。这亦反映了人类的强盗心态，故人类出现大规模的自相残杀——战争便是例证，人类亦以此心态残忍对付先于人类早居地球的动物，请问谁见过强大的大象欺负小动物？如弱肉强食反映自然规律，大自然应只剩下狮子老虎，弱肉强食根本不是大自然的最基本法则，平衡才是大自然的最基本法则。而人类正因为不遵循这个法则，所以才有破坏地球、破坏生态平衡的罪名。
大自然本来就是一个生态平衡的体系，地球自有生命以来（特别是人类未出现以前或者人类未发明工具以前），动物们都自觉不自觉地遵循着这个规律，并且证明在这样的地球以如此方式生存是正确的。而人类却利用工具过度贪婪地破坏了这种平衡，从而透支地球的承受力及后代的利益，人类亦因为贪婪而使自身退化不适应自然，如果人类早200年就醒悟可能还有回旋余地，现在确实进入了死胡同。人类以灭亡为代价而得到暂时的利益是划不来的。
虽然人类依赖工具砍伐森林，霸占动物栖息地使自己看似免受被许多猛兽撕碎并生吞之苦，但是，善恶报应亦不是没有的，只是换了一种方式而已。如人类多病，有车祸、飞机失事、火车出轨、沉船、战争、自杀等苦受，这些又何异于被许多猛兽撕碎并生吞呢？恐怕更苦吧。
平衡的生命网络之生命实无高低贵贱之分，亦无绝对的主宰与被主宰的关系。如果出现绝对的主宰与被主宰的关系，也就是不平衡的开始，也是共同走向灭亡的开始，这与世上做人处理人与人之间的关系道理亦是一样的。
事实上无人类的介入，大地动植物更充满生机，偏见弱肉强食为自然规律反映人类极其霸道。事实上，平衡是自然规律，若失平衡将不自然，若不自然将破坏平衡，平衡中生存，自然中发展（进化）。而人类却破坏生态平衡。人类若不能正视自己在地球上的位置，不仅不能保住原有的位置，甚至会被淘汰出局，这与世上做人处理人与人之间的关系道理亦是一样的。一样的道理，当然就有一样的结果，有什么想不通的呢。
人类并不是在向着适者生存的方向走，人类越依赖工具，自身适应自然的生存能力越退化，这怎么是适者生存的走法呢？走反了吧？动物才够资格说是向适者生存的方向走，人类是相反的，人类是强盗的走法——死路一条！哪有强盗会安乐的呢？哪怕他有很多钱，也是吃不安稳的。
因为人类根本不愿意舍去所贪得的一切，而且比任何时候都更加“疯狂”地索取，所以人类无法回头，已经进入了死胡同。
几乎每个有生育能力的家庭都会生育儿女，爱护自己的儿女，但为什么不想想儿女也会爱护他们的儿女，这样类推下去都是这样的，为什么现代的人却不管自己的子孙呢？看不到，难道想不到吗？
