Fashionistas, excuse me, Recessionistas, are getting used to the idea that the great roller coaster ride called life can feel, at least a lot lately, like going to hell in a handbasket. But the question is: is there room in that handbasket to pack the 7-plus inch high heels that are all the rage in some fashionable quarters this season?

You’ve heard, perhaps, the news of the newest heights? Circa April this year, Gwenyth Paltrow famously was photographed wearing various versions to parties and premieres.  And, during the recent presentations of the Spring 09 collections in Milan, the high heels were so towering at Prada that panic attacks cobbled not just some of the models obliged to strut the catwalk in the contraptions, but the ladies and gentlemen in the front row watching.

Now shoemaker extraordinaire Christian Louboutin has announced that next year he will begin producing 8-inch heels because this season his 5.9-to-7.1 inch heels have been, well, at least figuratively speaking, runaway bestsellers.

It’s a trend, really? Really, it is a trend, maybe a sociological indicator akin to measuring skirt lengths in a fluctuating economy, but a little like the tree falling in the forest if no one is there to report it, a trend is not a trend until it is properly named, and named well, woven wittily by catty chatty tongues and posh-prone pundits for web speed. 

Now the race is on among fashion etymologists and punsters to name the new high heels. Here a few offerings heard so far: Cougar Catchers, or Cougar Choos (like Jimmy Choos) Spites (rhymes with Spikes but ratcheted up a notch to accommodate 21st century Schadenfreude,) Oh-07s, Pump Palaces, Palins (or as the Republican Vice President candidate’s supporters like to say “Sarah 2012” which actually, to be correct, should be “Sarah 2013” and why not, like shoes these days, on a clear day looking over there to Russia, the sky’s the limit) and last, but not least in the running for trend name, Dopamines, the more, the higher, the faster the better.

For instance, on a recent Sunday, The New York Times Style section tracked the originations of the word “recessionista” hither and yon including the contributions of the young writer Derek Blasberg, scribbler for Style.com. (Derek is also the editor of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen’s handsome new book, “Influence,” celebrated at Barneys last Monday night, and interviews with style-world charmers including Karl Lagerfeld, Proenza Schouler designers Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez, Peter Beard and the Warholian Bob Colacello.) 

Christian Louboutin has offered this observation about pumps’ new boon: “There’s no doubt that heels have never been as high as they are now. You can find 7.9-inch heels in the fetish trade, but this will be the first time they make mainstream fashion. There will be a platform under the front of the shoe, but only a high heel at the back. It has to work technically because you have to ensure that the woman can walk—you have to do things inside the shoe.”

His shoe of beauty would look like a drawing of a skyscraper, he said.

Louboutin’s theory of why these shoes are so desirable now? “There’s a natural desire to be closer to heaven, plus there’s the idea of the little girl stepping into her mother’s shoes for the first time and feeling transformed, tasting womanhood.”

The Sunday Times of London quoted stylist Rachel Fanconi, who dresses among others Dame Helen Mirren, saying that in the economic downturn women will buy high heels before they do new clothing. “During the credit crunch this provides instant gratification. You are immediately taller, thinner, your bum is thrown out and it pushes out your breasts.”

The newspaper also quotes a retailer describing the elevating properties of the high new heels as “Prozac for the feet.”

But to be up to speed in the trendy anti-depressants game, I suppose, you would say “Lexipro for the feet.” If interested, ask your podiatrist about any side effects.

Your comments and thoughts, please?