The Obamas, everyone agrees, have got their look just right for these difficult economic times. He in a dark suit, as sober as a minister. She making much of her thrifty J. Crew habit, in contrast to Sarah Palin's overdone regional news reader look, which cost a splashy $150,000. Malia and Sasha, meanwhile, appear cute but slightly retro, with hemlines firmly on the knee. Here are children, you sense, who are not going to be allowed a boob tube anytime soon.

This pared-down elegance, economical without resembling a hair shirt, is exactly what Karl Lagerfeld meant when he spoke recently about the "death of bling" and the return of a "new modesty". This, he suggested, was a Good Thing, a kind of cleansing of the Western world's over-bloated fashion soul. Karl, of course, became vague when pressed on some of the darker implications. Chanel, the couture house which he heads, recently had to "let go" one-tenth of its workforce, a crisis which one French TV station likened to the catastrophic moment when Coco Chanel shut up shop at the outbreak of war in 1939. Chanel, though, is hardly the only luxury fashion brand feeling the pinch. Louis Vuitton recently pulled the plug on a spectacular new flagship store opening in Tokyo, while American designers Vera Wang and Betsey Johnson have chosen not to have runway shows during New York's recent fashion week. The implication is clear: it simply costs too much.

On the other hand, fashion's first cousin, the beauty industry, seems to be one of the very few doing rather nicely. The cosmetics business is worth £12 billion worldwide and is feeling quietly confident about getting through these recessionary times. Growth may be muted in the developed markets of the US and Europe, but companies such as L'Oréal continue to post the kind of figures which couture houses and high street fashion chains can only dream about.