"I was in Saks last week, and there were these staggering discounts and it’s not even Jan. 1. I was told by easily half a dozen sales associates that if I opened a Saks credit card, I’d get another 15 percent off. What I wonder is, 'What are the real margins?'"

Alana Semuels writes in the Wall Street Journal that some luxury brands are throwing lavish parties in order to "trigger that buying feeling." Extravagant events aren't a waste if you target your customer and instill loyalty, the thinking goes.

But on the retail level, Mr. Trebay writes of Valentino evening gowns marked down 60%, of Loro Piana cashmere blazers priced at $329, down from $2,000. Here's the thing: In this uncertain and tough economic climate, does "luxury" lose its appeal altogether, no matter the "bargain"? Questions Trebay:

Once consumers become acquainted with slash-and-burn prices, how can designer fashion regain its mystique? Will shoppers ever again want to buy luxury goods at full price?

Listen, even if you could never afford any "luxury" items, they still had a place, a role as untouchably elegant and remote; something to fantasize about. Does a Marc Jacobs bag still seem special, rare and unique when you've seen a bin full of them at slashed prices? Never mind what happens to a dream deferred — what happens to a dream marked down?

Luxury Prices Are Falling; the Sky, Too [NY Times]
Luxury Brands Go Over The Top To Connect With Wealthy Clients [WSJ]

I remember a lunch conversation with my dear friend ... around the art of the brand. Logo'ed luxury items were top sellers, but why? Was it simply to send a message about status and class? ... As this was happening in my outer world, something was happening inside. Of course I was deeply proud to represent a major designer house, founded by one of the most brilliant designers in history. At first I was proud to have the ability to buy and wear $900 pants, $1,000 blouses...But over time I started to pay more attention to the push pull inside of me every time I put my credit card on the counter. In order to continue to stay current season after season, it seemed I 'required' more. Another pair of shoes. That dress. Yes, it was fun at first. But over time all of this started to feel deeply 'out of proportion' - it was all out of proportion with what it meant to me as a human being. Was that blouse really worth $1,000? Even if I could afford it, did I WANT to???

It was written by Cosmo bachelor of the year 1977 John Kenneth Galbraith, and because I was feeling geeky today I decided to just excerpt the parts I found relevant to your personal crisis.

Economic theory has managed to transfer the sense of urgency in meeting consumer need that once was felt in a world where more production meant more food for the hungry, more clothing for the cold and more houses for the homeless to a world where increased output satisfies the craving for more elegant automobiles, more exotic food, more erotic clothing, more elaborate entertainment — indeed, for the entire modern range of sensuous, edifying and lethal desires. Although the economic theory which defends these desires and hence the production that supplies them has an impeccable (and to an astonishing degree even unchallenged) position in the conventional wisdom, it is illogical and meretricious and, in degree, even dangerous.

Few economists in recent years can have escaped some uneasiness over the kinds of goods which their value system is insisting they must maximize. They have wondered about the urgency of numerous products of great frivolity. They have been uneasy about the lengths to which it has been necessary to go with advertising and salesmanship to synthesize the desire for such goods....The weakness, as well as the ultimate defense, lies with the theory of consumer demand. This is a formidable structure; it has already demonstrated its effectiveness in defending the urgency of production. In a world where affluence is rendering the old ideas obsolete, it will continue to be the bastion against the misery of new ones.

The theory of consumer demand, as is now widely accepted, is based on two broad propositions, neither of themquite explicit but both extremely important for the present value system of economists. The first is that the urgency of wants does not diminish appreciably as more of them are satisfied or, to put the matter more precisely, to the extent that this happens, it is not demonstrable and not a matter of any interest to economists or economic policy. When man has satisfied his physical needs, then psychologically grounded desires take over. These can never be satisfied, or, in any case, no progress can be proved....

The second proposition is that wants originate in the personality of the consumer or, in any case, that they are given data for the economist. The latter's tasks is merely to seek their satisfaction. He has no need to inquire how those wants are formed. His function is sufficiently fulfilled by maximizing the goods that supply the wants.

As Adam Smith observed: "Nothing is more useful than water; but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use: but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it."

Yesterday the man with a minimal but increasing real income was reaping the satisfactions which came from a decent diet and a roof that no longer leaked water on his face. Today, after a large increase in his income, he has extended his consumption to include cable television and eccentric loafers. But to say that his satisfactions from these latter amenities and recreations are less than from the additional calories and the freedom from rain is wholly improper.

To summarize: you are a tool of the Western World's obsession with quantifying the worth of its situation via continuous, sustained GDP growth. Also: get a life.

P.S. Did not mean to be snippy! Clearly you are making headway! Just suggesting that empty feeling you're feeling — Paris is feeling it too! — does not have its origins in anything that happened, say, the year Scarlett Johansson started shilling for Vuitton or whatever.

How I Escaped The Luxury Brand Tsunami [Huffington Post]

The Affluent Society [Amazon]

• Karl Lagerfeld has commissioned 15 contemporary artists to create works inspired by his iconic quilted Chanel bag for a two-year touring exhibit. Kind of interesting how iconic handbags are like the Virgin Mary of now. Maybe in twenty years people will be seeing Hermes Birkin bags in their grilled cheese sandwiches and selling them on eBay. [WWD, sub req'd]
  
• The dress will remain the dominant fashion trend through Spring 2008, according to the owner of luxury retailer Louis Boston, who makes some weird reference to American global hegemony. [WWD, sub req'd]
  
• Dooney & Bourke releases a line of bags named for Emma Roberts (Julia's niece and current star of "Nancy Drew"), with prices ranging from $210 to $235. Remember how when you were reading Nancy Drew, you thought $215 was like, enough to buy a house? Ah, kids today! [WWD, 1st item]
  
• It's a boy for supermodel Eva Herzigova and her Italian businessman common law husband. Remember how she did all those Wonderbra ads, haha? Lactation jokes never get old! [Vogue UK]
  
• Fashion muse Isabella Blow's widower Detmar hopes to create a museum to house his late wife's extensive clothing collection, is "hoping all the people she helped in her life will cough up some money to get this up and running." Ooh, subtle! [Vogue UK]
  
• Why should European luxury brands expand in China and India when there are still soooo many [brace yourselves! Fave word alert!] aspirational middle Americans stuck with Coach? [Fashion Inc.]