Microeconomics is real economics. Macroeconomics is made up to imply there's some magical line you cross where it switches from real economics to fantasy economics.
While I share your contempt for Keynesian economics, and while "macroeconomics" in particular could be just keynesian nonsense (I don't know), I would still think that there should
be room for a macroscopic view of things. The science analog I would use to suggest this is Quantum Mechanics vs General Relativity. QM is super accurate for small things.
I didn't check the links, but generally your sentiment is true, QM effects can be see on large scale, GR effects can be seen on small scale. But my point is their "roots" are different
Oversimplified: GR was developed by observing macroscopic phenomena (gravity mainly), QM was developed observing microscopic phenomena (elementary particles mainly).
That is, at least the "mainly" parts I wrote there are "oversimplifications at best". GR was maybe mainly developed by thought experiments with regards to light speed.
Truth, yes. QM is an enigma: 1. QM looks like something a menstruating witch on shrooms dreamt up. 2. So randomly often QM seems to correlate things we never imagined correlated.
GR is super accurate for big things. They do not combine well, but until we have a theory of everything (if ever), both approaches bring important insights for the complete picture.