Most economists, believe different methods are needed for studying individual markets versus the whole economy.
Even though most economists agree on the basics of microeconomic analysis, the field of macroeconomics grew out of dissatisfaction with perceived limitations in the predicted outcomes from microeconomics.
There is no widespread agreement on the conclusions drawn from macroeconomic studies.
Therefore, it is not shorthand for microeconomic truths.
It is not clear if investors need macroeconomics to make good decisions.
An economy is an extremely complex and dynamic system therefore, it is very difficult to identify real signals in macroeconomics because the “data is noisy”.
Macroeconomists frequently disagree about how to measure effectiveness or how to make predictions and makes it easy for investors to draw incorrect conclusions or even adopt contradictory indicators.
Investors should study basic economics, though the limitations of the field present ample opportunities to be led astray.
Economists often present information in a definitive manner to sound authoritative or scientific, but most economists make poor predictions.
However, this does not prevent them from making more bold proclamations, each about topics with a lot of uncertainty.
Investors should demonstrate more humility, and this is where microeconomics can really help.
It is not useful to try to predict where the indexes will be in 12 months or what the inflation rate will be at that time.
But investors can try to find companies with products that demonstrate a low price elasticity of demand, or identify which industries are most reliant on i.e low oil prices or require high capital expenditures to survive.
Microeconomics can help identify, which companies are most likely to use their resources efficiently and generate higher returns, and the tools of analysis are easy to understand.
Macroeconomics may be more ambitious, but so far it has a much worse track record.