I recently had a discussion with a friend from church who is a staunch Democrat. The conversation centered around economic policy and, specifically, the belief that the Republican Party is based on greed.

The reciprocal assumption was that the Democratic Party — and this friend acknowledged the more socialist viewpoint — holds the more just, humane, and, if you will, Christian economic policies.

If one wades through the fog of politically driven rhetoric, however, one may find a void of reason, logic and basic understanding of American economic history represented by this common but simplistic analysis.

Modern conservatism as represented by today’s Republicans does not always neatly mirror Milton Friedman’s more pure noninterventionist outlook. Instead, it reflects the wear of political compromise over the course of the 20th century.

Assume for a moment a loose spectrum of viewpoints advocating more government intervention in the market on the left and less government intervention on the right. We can reduce this to “more socialist” and “more capitalist,” respectively.

Since the New Deal and the Great Society America of the 1960s our society has moved considerably to the left; our history has been based upon a free-market system that has yielded an immense array of benefits that you and I enjoy today: the automobile, electricity and the computer, to name a few.

The explanation for these innovations is that there is a financial incentive to develop, invent and provide the services that are desired by others. Despite the great risk and high failure rate in these endeavors, many have succeeded in making our lives better in their quest for monetary gain.

Such is the beauty of capitalism.

The late Ronald Nash, a philosophy professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explained in an essay, “As long as greedy individuals are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process, their greed must be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to exchange their holdings.”

My point in bringing up the advantages and necessity of capitalism would be irrelevant were it not for the outright hostility toward capitalism from those who insist we must continue to increase regulation on business and raise taxes in order to balance the distribution of wealth in society.

At what point do the big government types ask, “OK, this is big enough,” or, “This is compassionate enough”? There comes a point when everyone must acknowledge that the more government intervenes in the market, the less productive society will be.

More interventionist European nations have much slower growth and higher unemployment than the still largely pro-market United States. The 27-member European Union had 7.4 percent average unemployment rate and a combined GDP of $16 trillion in 2007, compared with the United States’ 4.9 percent and $14 trillion respectively.

So what is the ideal outcome of those decrying the injustice of capitalism? John Edwards bemoaned the horrors of inequality in America all through his presidential campaign.

But without absolute communism, won’t there always be inequality in society?

I shouldn’t be automatically considered greedy because I see the need to maintain free-market principles, of which even socialism requires elements, for survival. Only free markets provide the pricing information necessary for rational economic activity.

Nevertheless, there are plenty in society who truly need assistance, even from the government.

While I strongly support private charity and can point to the overwhelmingly higher charitable giving rates among red states to prove that my fellow conservatives do as well, I acknowledge that for some things government so-called the best bet.

The point, however, is that I never hear poverty paladins vow they will fight just as hard to eradicate the policies that reduce incentive, create dependency and allow many to pawn the system as they do for their welfare programs.

The reality is that poverty in the United States, while still an issue, is not what it used to be. In fact, while the rate has remained at the same level for several decades, the quality of living has drastically increased, further clouding what it actually means to be “poor” in the United States.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and other government reports, 43 percent of poor households own their own homes, 80 percent have air conditioning, 70 percent own a car and 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Between 1979 and 2006, real wages for median workers rose 11.5 percent, and this included a 4 percent rise for those in the 10th percentile.

A University of Michigan study on income dynamics tracked 50,000 families from 1968 and found that by 1991, three quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles.

Ayn Rand Institute distinguished fellow Peter Schwartz said, “While prohibiting a Thomas Edison or Bill Gates from becoming fabulously wealthy does indeed reduce income inequality, it does not make the poor richer. Nonetheless, it is what egalitarians desire.”

Some believe that Sen. Barack Obama’s proposed $850 billion in new spending will actually cure poverty. On the contrary, this foolish move will only reduce the America’s wealth creation and individual freedom in order for workers to do their productive best.

[Reach columnist Tom Walker at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]