From the Business section of last Sunday’s NYT, on the recent boom in sales of cheap vodka: Reaching for the Bottom Shelf . (See also: this’n and those’n.)

[snip]

“Of course, some boutique vineyards and craft distilleries create exceptional beverages, even if the price is sometimes hard to justify. But much of the high-end liquor bubble was fueled by sleek advertising and bottle design, and by the realization that many Americans assume that the priciest beverage must be the best.

“Nowhere was this more evident than in the vodka category. By government definition, vodka is supposed to be a neutral alcohol without distinctive character, aroma, taste or color, and some believe that the differences among vodkas are so subtle that only connoisseurs can distinguish them.

“But a marketing genius and liquor baron named Sidney Frank decided in 1996 that with the right story line and marketing panache, Americans would buy steeply priced vodka. He came up with a refined name, Grey Goose, and a sleek bottle.

“Most important, Mr. Frank, now deceased, decided to charge $30 for a bottle of Grey Goose, nearly twice as much as the most popular imported vodka, Absolut. It was a phenomenal success, so much so that in 2004 Mr. Frank sold Grey Goose for $2 billion to Bacardi.

“And yet several impartial taste tests have found that the cost of a bottle of vodka doesn’t necessarily translate into better taste.”

[/]

To which I say:

1) This is news?

2) S.o.p. for the N.Y.T., but the point of this story seems to be that the development of critical thinking skills in the service of consumer decision making is only of urgent (ie: newsworthy) import in a recession. As long as the bubble’s holding solid and everyone’s swanning around burning Madoff Group statements out the windows of their Escalades (apparently status quo 18 months ago) it’s totally OK to pay $36.99 for a pretty bottle and a marketing campaign. In fact, it’s not just OK, it’s a lifestyle to which we should aspire.

This … is depressing.

But of a piece with other recent recession-themed lifestyle pieces in the Times. This one got a fair amount of play (scorn) already for its radical suggestion that well-off women recycle their party dresses and — gasp — carpool. But consider something as apparently wholesome as this Jane Brody column. It’s hook, to paraphrase: “Can’t afford lobster any more? Consider whole grains!” Does the Science editor not read the Magazine? Might there not be other good reasons to eat kale and cabbage besides pinching pennies?

Meh. There’s vast nation of people out there for whom frugality — including nutritious eating and status-neutral drinking — isn’t a temporary hardship, it’s a lifestyle. Not to mention common sense. Is a little credit for prescience so much to ask?