Your central premise is flawed -- in particular
> Last 3 years has shown that to be a good investor you need to know macroeconomics
This is not true. It is true that 'macro' events (central bank actions, supply/demand shocks, wars, pandemics) affect prices, but it's not true that you need to be a macroeconomic expert to be a good investor:
1. Any understanding of macro you get from reading in your spare time is unlikely to be good enough to use as the basis for an investment strategy (although you may think it is -- but this will just lead to you making bad, or at best random, market timing decisions)
2. Even if you could become an expert, there isn't a clear mapping from macroeconomic outcomes to asset prices. So you not only need to be right about the macro picture, you need to be right about the effect it will have on asset prices (including the second- and third-order effects, e.g. central bank and other investor reactions to the macro outcomes)
3. Even if you do become a macro expert, and you have the correct mapping from macro outcomes to asset prices, it's not enough. You don't only need to be right about the macro outcomes, you need to be more right than the market. The market is made up of a huge number of diverse actors, many of whom have access to vast resources and spent literally all of their waking time trying to use macro data to predict asset prices. Are you better than them?
4. Even if the above can all be overcome -- is this really the highest return use of your time (compared to e.g. getting better at your day job and increasing your income, or starting a company in your area of expertise and getting rich that way)
That all sounds daunting, but fortunately there's a solution! Simply buy a diversified set of investments in a tax-efficient wrapper for a total cost of < 10 basis points annually, and add capital to the pot regularly, and you will get great investment results over any 25-30 year time horizon, with essentially zero effort.