I like Willem Buiter’s curmudgeonly take on why he blogs:
To all those readers of this blog who have requested shorter, snappier, less technical and abstruse postings, the following. I write this blog for me, not for my readers. Writing things down is the only way for me to communicate effectively with myself about complex issues. By doing this writing in the form of a blog, I gain the option of taking on board the comments and criticism of those who read my scribblings and feel compelled to respond to it. I gain this benefit at the cost of having to plough through a lot of stuff that makes little or no sense, in order to uncover the few pearls hidden among the swine. There are minor vanity/ego rents to having people read what I write, and my consulting income may receive an indeterminate boost from these activities. But all that is secondary to my need to write. I don’t know something unless I have written it down.
I started this blog quite independently, at http://maverecon.blogspot.com/. I was invited by the Financial Times to move my blog to their site. Because of the likelihood of greater vanity/ego rents and the possibility of more frequent intelligent feedback through wider readership, I accepted this invitation. When the FT lose interest, I will go private again. I don’t get paid for this blog.
So no, my blogs will not get shorter, snappier, less demanding, less abstruse, complicated and confusing. My blog postings are and will be excessively lengthy, long-winded, demanding, abstruse, complicated and confusing where the problems are complicated and confusing. I make no concessions to my readers. Why should I? The readers I lose or miss as a result of writing the way I do are the readers I don’t want in the first place. They can always go to the National Enquirer, Bild or the News of the World.
PS Some people say I’m arrogant. No idea where they get that notion.
The post is almost certainly the shortest one Buiter has yet written.