Tovarich Weiser says:
===========
I'm merely supporting price controls and subsidies
============

Which implies central planning insofar as a central government decides
on the allocation of scarce resources, not Adam Smith's "invisible
hand".

As to how this is different from welfare to the poor, you have not made
clear. This is corporate welfare which, in the specific case of
agri-business, may well be driving TnT's sugar beet in-laws and other
ma and pa farms out of existence.

Further, we have yet to establish that orange groves in the desert
serve some sort of national interest. Seems like a bad idea if the the
price of the oranges doesn't reflect the true cost of growing them.
Wouldn't we be better off eating apples?

Ultimately, somebody has to pay the price of the water. Most likely it
is Henry Homemaker when he pays higher residential water rates. This
would be tolerable if our agri-business firms operated as non-profits.
As they don't, Henery Homemaker is subsidizing those who hold shares in
agri-business. That sounds like WELFARE to me.

Welfare to the poor further serves the purpose of reducing the nation's
income disparity. Check your history books for the consequences of
income disparity, Tovarich. You'll then understand why this is of
strategic importance to your government.

Cheers, comrade,
frtzw906