Macro matters, but probably not the way you think it does. It's really not as simple as going out and buying a bunch of gold miners because you think the world is going to collapse, so gold prices are going to go through the roof. Reality (as it often is) is far more nuanced.
Macro matters, because it's nothing more than the aggregate of all the micro. Macro matters because if inflation occurs, either in raw material prices or in labour costs, that naturally affects a business's inputs and/or outputs.
Macro matters especially in emerging markets. I don't care what the ROIC of XYZ consumer goods company is; if it's Argentina or Venezuela and capital flees, everything is going to get tagged.
Macro doesn't matter when you invest in well-managed global leaders. As an investor, you know that Microsoft has dozens of cross-currency exposures, but you trust them to manage their risks well, as they have time and time again. Similarly, you cannot be running around like a headless chicken and panic-selling Tencent because the Rmb depreciates 5% in a given year. Macro doesn't matter when you trust your operating managers.
Macro certainly doesn't matter if you're trying to use it to read the news and pick stocks. As James Montier wrote in The Little Book of Behavioural Investing, even if you're a forecaster with 70% accuracy, you first have to get the macro right (70% chance), then pick the right market to benefit (70% chance), then pick the right security (70% chance). So your probability of making the right call keep plummeting (0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.343).
There've been a lot of investors who make their money doing macro forecasting and trading, and fair play to them. But if that's your game, you're better off trading flow-based macro instruments like rates and FX. The transmission mechanism to equities is weak at best, and it's certainly not something I do well.
So, macro: does it matter? In the end, I suppose the only thing that matters is if we make money. Now, you'll excuse me while I go off to short some Bitcoin...