Here is an interesting article in NYT about how the Chamapgne Houses are responding to the economic crisis and the drop in sales (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12519...) which has also been picked up by The Economist (http://www.economist.com/businessfina...) and finally (http://www.luxist.com/2009/08/31/grow...).
As a customer of this fine yet expensive and non-essential product (especially in these cash-strapped times), there are some aspects of this whole issue which make me very uncomfortable, actually I feel somewhat cheated (...and I HATE getting cheated):
Is it the idea that yeilds can be played around with so brutally without substantial impact on quality? Surely you'll get a better wine with low harvest.
Is it the idea that I got screwed on the price when demand was higher than supply but they would rather let excess production rot than give their loyal customers discounted prices in tough economic times?
Is my belief in capitalistics market forces feeling insulted at being tied to this monopolistic supply source who can manipulate the markets to their pleasing? ie." any which way, the customer is screwed".
Should I vote with my wallet? and how?