The law is so complicated that even specialists like lawyers aren't trusted to get it right, and we bring in the judges who are experts even among the experts to help with the tricky stuff. Sometimes they talk in latin. And yet, when questioned, they still come up with answers that make sense. There is a profound fairness - often the complaint against the legal system is its procedural fairness is too thorough when people think there are obvious answers.

In economics, the argument seems to almost literally be "lol, we have your money hostage, if we don't start the money printers you'll go bankrupt. Yeah, we have policies that will wipe out your savings if you don't put it up as a hostage. This is in your own best interests. No your doubts aren't legitimate you're just not being reasonable and/or we don't want to engage with you in common English. All the evidence was established in 1930 and the debate is settled, we don't really need to provide it now, trust us we're right and you don't understand it anyway".

I say almost because the "lol" is not included in the serious version.