I can't blame someone for remaining ignorant of macroeconomics. I also don't take you very seriously. The most likely reason why you feel that most economists know nothing about macroeconomics is because you belong to a minority or so-called heterodox faction.

Macroeconomics is full of dogmatic factions. The factions all believe that their own group knows everything and that people outside the faction know nothing. If you want to pursue macroeconomics, you have to join a faction. Choosing to ignore these factions entirely and specialize in less divisive subfields seems eminently reasonable to me.

I went to a PhD program at one university. The university faculty all ascribed to one faction (no surprise they hire each other). I 'learned' that the other dominant faction was full of shit and held laughable views. I was never formally taught what those laughable views were. They were just irrelevant. This is typical of economics PhD programs. There is a war over who gets to be orthodox. It is like a religion.

There are also the so-called heterodox factions. Heterodox factions are not serious competitors with the two orthodox factions (freshwater and saltwater). No one even bothers to ridicule the heterodox factions. Heterodox views are fairly common outside of the ivory tower, but you are not going to get employed at a good university if you hold heterodox beliefs. There are a handful of low quality universities that specialize in heterodoxy (e.g. University of Mass at Amherst : Marxism, George Mason University : Austrian Economics). I think you are frustrated that your heterodox faction lacks broader support.

The picture of Krugman indicates that I personally ascribe to the saltwater faction. In school, I learned the freshwater faction and I respect their views. The heterodox factions are, of course, completely full of shit.

PS What about econometrics? The third major sub-discipline. Being completely ignorant of this is okay?