In economic theory, Adam Smith says supply create it owns demand. Then Keynes says, demand create it owns supply. Another way round. Which one is right, which one is wrong? Both right or wrong? There are four posibilities. Anyway, what I want to say today is not wrong is right, who is wrong.
It seems that Chinese hawker food price skyrocketed from year to year because nowadays Chinese no longer eat to live but live to eat. Filling up the stomach is no longer the main priority but the taste and the ingredients come first. Eat with happiness and satisfaction.
We are part to be blame for the high price because of our willingness to pay for RM5 for a plate Char Koay Teow, adding mantis prawn, double eggs and etc, till the price reach RM8 per plate.
Example: the Kg Jawa (near the FIZ 2 gate, near my workplace) famous char koay teow starting price is RM3.30 compare to a normal Wan Tan Mee might only costs RM2.50. Why different RM0.80, because of the willingness to pay. People might argue, 'hey, you are getting 2 big prawns'. Yes, the satisfaction is the 2 big prawns. But personally, I think this is a bit exorbitant.
Because of our demand (the consumer) and most

importantly, the willingness to pay, a plate of Char Koay Teow can costs RM5/RM8. In this case, who is right? Adam Smith or Keynes? Supply create it owns demand or demand create it owns supply?
Imagine one fine day, all the people suddenly change, unite as a group to boycott those stalls selling RM4.50/RM5/RM8 per plate Chay Koay Teow, what will happen? Will they force to bring down their price or egoistically maintain these prices? Usually those hawkers dare to display these prices are ego, because the demand is there and customer needs to tolerate their mood swing. :)
I am not anti Chay Koay Teow, instead I love it. The same goes to nasi kandar outlet. But what I am trying to say is, as consumer, we can "balance up or unbalance the market'. It's our call and exercise it dilligently.