When the topic of macro or micro economics comes up, it's usually a debate between two people. The first person will often claim that macroeconomics is more difficult because the main goal of the macroeconomics is to keep the economy in balance, and they would argue that microeconomics should only focus on the micro. But this isn't quite true at all because you can have macroeconomics that is both micro and macro, and vice versa.
To prove this, we need to go back to how macro and micro came to be. The history of economics begins with the observation that human societies are not able to keep all their resources in balance. For example, even when there is a relatively small population of one hundred and fifty individuals, human beings find ways to divide up their resources in an inefficient way. This results in a wide disparity between the wealth of the various members of the society, which leads to economic collapse as well as political chaos.
There are many theories about why the economic system collapses. But the most popular theory is called “Egon's Law”, which states that, as economies grow bigger, they tend to break down and that a crisis will occur sooner or later. And this theory was very much borne out by the economic crises during the Great Depression, which was brought about by unemployment.
So, if you want to have micro economics that can be easily manipulated, then you can always use the theory of Egon's law. After all, that is what macroeconomics is about – to keep the economy in balance and so that everything runs smoothly.
The real difference between macro and micro economics lies in how they are controlled. Both systems have a tendency to become too powerful, and in the case of a macro, this means that they become too efficient. However, microeconomics does not tend to run in this direction, because they don't see economies as being too efficient.
This difference between these two different perspectives is what leads to the existence of the world of microeconomics. They work together and complement each other in order to produce a healthy balance between economic forces. These are the two ways of looking at the economy – whether you want to call them macro or micro – and they need to be used properly in order to get the most out of your macroeconomic models. So, which one of these is better?