<prompt> Human: So he gave me the example of having a debt that you pay off over ten years. His idea is that because money loses its value over time due to inflation, its better to pay debt off slowly because for something like his school loan, the loan interest rate is less than the inflation rate. So why take a large hit all at once when you can get it paid off gradually since its losing value with time or something like that? I hope someone can explain this insanity to me. I made every counter argument I can think of: get rid of debt quickly, avoid the debt getting bigger due to unforseen things, less bills per month, use the interest money to invest, you name it I said it. Can someone tell me why hes dead wrong so I can rub his face in it? Or I guess why Im wrong so I stop second guessing my marriage? Or were both wrong? Thanks!  <response>: Youre both right.There are different, valid methods to tackling debt. Youre taking the practical cash flow view, where you want to keep your income as high as possible do you have as much cash free as you need in case you have an emergency. Your husband is trying to take the mathematical approach to reduce the amount of interest paid over the next 30 years. However, that involves having the money and cash flow tied up for maximum return.Your method is low risklow return. His method is higher riskhigher return. Two different but legitimate methods. Truthfully the best answer is a combination of the two, or some money in each basket to create a medium riskmedium return strategy. You need some liquid money, but theres no sense in overdoing it. Clear your debts until you have a comfortable level of post-bill savings, and then invest instead of focusing on the remaining debts. 