Too much paper?: efficientising poetry for brevity reasons

I had an idea that the experience of reading poetry can, often enough, be concerned with the problems of volume and reading-time. Poetic long forms may not be as valuable as short forms, UNLESS they convey a greater amount of meaning in their larger volumes. What cannot be said in a short poem MUST be said in a longer one, but there is a lot of iffing and whether-ing about whether any words should be regarded as superfluous. Right? I think efficiency of words is, by and large, a "sometime" concern. Sometimes it concerns readers and writers, and sometimes it does not and need not concern them. The most practical example of superfluity is in people themselves, who live their lives without purpose, meaning or important intention. And yet even that is elusive, as people sometimes do not crave importance in that way. Some people are made corrupt by there being too much energy in what they do, and yet others are happy just to be. So it is with the words of poetry, on the pages that you read.