If you think the return of your investments will >= 3% mortgage rates then you're losing money by not taking on debt (albeit with a bit of risk).
This being the utter fucking fallacy of hypothesising with the benefit of perfect information.
It's not a trick, it's simple maths. It certainly doesn't always work, and there are risks involved, so not everyone will agree on the right decision, but there is clearly a path where borrowing money to pay for a large asset makes sense.
Imagine a more extreme example:
Interest rates 0.1%, Inflation 10%, 30 year term, leverage meaning your 50k becomes say 500k invested.
Now it makes sense to take on as much debt as you can get over say 30 years, and to put off paying it as long as possible, because even after a few years the payments will be quite minor compared to your inflating income, and at the end of the 30 years the debt you have left and the interest payments on it will be trivial compared to your income.
In real terms cash is losing significant money every year while assets are gaining money. Debt makes sense as long as you have a margin of safety and can multiply the impact with leverage.
IF you believe inflation will be significant over 30 years say, and can lock in a low rate, it is better to go with a longer term.