According to the post if the price of silver is higher, the tax threshold increases and more people have extra money to support whatever organization they want.
Despite the lower price of the silver, the "tax" is a static fiat-based % so basically more people are donating the same %. All the people that were donating 1.5% if holding a balance over $380 would still be donating it (and the same $amount) if the threshold were $360 (silver price drops), more people would be donating since now everyone between $360 and $380 would also be donating a 1.5% in addition.
If the donation was in silver then it might even itself out, but you'd have to look at a distribution curve of income to know for sure.
From the twitter posts:
> Individuals who fall just below the threshold one year due the chance price of silver suddenly avoid a 2.5% gvt tax. Those people then increase their private donations to charity (since they have more disposable income + islam calls for alms-giving).
Or in clearer terms:
> ↑silver price → ↑tax threshold → ↓taxes → ↑charity → ↑terrorist financing → ↑terrorist attacks!
Worse: their data doesn't even fit! Just look at that https://mobile.twitter.com/benmarrow/status/1180141555044294...
How can anyone see this kind of plot and be like “Eureka!”…
Even if the explanation of the twitter post is far-fetched, the approach of understanding and finding periods of stress in some population around the world by trying to understand their cultures and economies is refreshing.
Also,...
Over-fitting data.
My god these things drive me crazy.
If it’s real, then he should be able to answer this question posted on Twitter by Gregory Allen Perry ( @gallenperry ):
What is the payout on a $1000 bet that a terrorist attack in will occur in Kashmir in the month of February with no less than 20 victims killed if the price of silver drops by 5% immediately prior to Pakistani tax assessment in the year before?
If he can’t answer a question at least somewhat in the same vein as that, then this is crap. If he can (within any reasonable degree of confidence), then I’m wrong.