That's weird. I had the opposite reaction. The ideas were so obvious to me that I couldn't understand what all the hype was about.

It’s largely a popsci book for poseurs. To wit: most of these people “into economics” haven’t read a word of Smith or Keynes.

It’s best use is to be announced your favorite book among undistinguished company. Some people need such books. Such as those from Smith and Keynes.

Since you’re giving an edgy take in a thread discussing the death of a respected author, I’ll be pedantic: you’re wrong about those people not reading a word of Smith or Keynes, since it’s impossible to avoid reading at least one of their common quotations if you have even a passing interest in the field.

You’re in the wrong thread then. This one is discussing a book. Perhaps the word thread doesn’t work too well with your intent.

Fighting pedantry with pedantry, nice.

I suffered through the book and I just think it is a rather boring writing style.

The poseur part is that it doesn't matter if you know what is in the book or not. That is actually the interesting part of the book to me but also why it is largely an exercise in futility.

I would assume someone who says it is their favorite book just has not read that many non-fiction books.

Don't worry, it doesn't matter, because at best a lot of claims in this books just cannot be replicated, and at worst the book is completely useless because it's based on shitty science - depends on your POV.