Copying over my old comment...

"I think one thing that's important to remember is that German political culture at the time didn't associate being far-right with free-market economics. (Being a firebreathing anti-Communist and disdainful of Social Democracy, on the other hand, was a requirement.)

Germany had a long history of right-wing figures advocating social welfare programs or government intervention in the economy, the most famous example being Otto von Bismarck's creation of the world's first real welfare state. The Nazi Party was also always open about their populist character, and they made a point of underlining their differences from old-style reactionaries. The Nazis had a much more "modern", "revolutionary" sheen to them than more old-style Wilhelmine reactionaries did, far more indifferent to class distinctions, which was part of the ingredient to their success over other right-wing factions in Germany. This was highly appealing to demographics that were uninterested in more traditional right-wing parties, such as youth. As John Lukacs and Ian Kershaw have pointed out quite accurately, Hitler was a strong believer in selective modernization and meritocracy, and viewed the Nazi Party as revolutionary, not reactionary. He was often highly scornful of the neo-pagan, "nostalgic for the good old days of illiterate hut-dwellers" attitudes found among some other senior Nazis, like Heinrich Himmler.

Thus, between these two factors, Hitler calling himself a socialist and advocating a stronger sense of social community over class differences and calling for things like a cap on industrial profits(and enforcing them in power, much to the chagrin of the Ruhr industrialists), while still denouncing Marxism as the prime enemy of Germany and advocating a national community spirit that transcended class differences, wouldn't have been viewed as particularly odd. The meaning of "left" and "right" differs from country to country as well as through time periods. And unlike the American business community, the German business community at the time had been living with a certain amount of government control in the economy for a long time. They had long since made their peace with this fact. This made collaboration with a nominally socialist party somewhat easier when it became clear that more traditional, moderate right-wing parties that more openly supported private property and class distinctions weren't going to hold back the populism dam, especially when said socialist party was highly nationalistic and authoritarian, wanted to suppress the greater evils of Marxism and Social Deocracy, and openly wanted to scrap Versailles. Keep in mind, the Nazis and the Communists (both of whom openly wanted to end the Weimar Republic, thus making governing near impossible) combined were regularly winning more than half the vote by the early 1930s: it wasn't as if they had a classical liberal, free-trade focused party at their disposal that could plausibly win.

Transitioning to general discourse, economic views were one of those things that often varied depending on the faction of the Nazi Party: Goebbels and Goering are a good example of a pair that represented roughly opposite economic views. Adolf Hitler personally, for his part, always viewed his ideology as syncretic in nature. Hitler strongly favored private property up to a point, and always saw Marxists and Jews as the prime enemy of Germany, not capitalists, as he made clear to the Strassers, Goebbels, et al in Bamberg in 1926. One reason Roehm ended up dying was because he could not accept the fact that Hitler had "sold out" to the Ruhr industrialists and the East Prussian generals. Hitler essentially gave up the role of revolutionary in exchange for that of politician starting in the mid-1920s, and he knew that the key to power lay through expanding his hold on the middle class and building bridges to entrenched interests.

That being said, private interests always were strictly subordinate to that of the German Volksgemeinschaft, in his view, to a degree that would have distinguished him from your typical Wilhelmine conservative. Hitler always believed that the nation came first and viewed laissez-faire capitalism as holding Germany hostage to a parasitic, plutocratic (and Jewish dominated) cosmopolitan class. In the long term, of course, Hitler had no intention of being anybody's pawn, or working in anybody's interests except Hitler's, and that of the German state as he defined them. The German industrialists and conservatives who thought they could control him in the early 1930s were every bit as wrong in their gross underestimation of Hitler, and in the fundamental misunderstanding of the agenda and nature of the putschist turned politician they were dealing with, as Trotsky and Company were about a certain rising Georgian bank robber turned bureaucrat the previous decade. Hitler's views would grow steadily more radical and "revolutionary" during his years in power, as he began to shed his politician's mask, when it came to... just about everything, economics and class dynamics included, to the point where in the latter half of the war he regretted not supporting the Republicans in Spain against the clergy and landowners."

TL;DR: Being far right, voelkisch style right, and being a classical liberal in economics were not associated with each other in 1930s Germany in the same way that they are in 2000s America. Hitler's economic views were nebulous, but definitely neither laissez-faire capitalist nor outright socialist in the sense of the Sozis. By the early 1930s, the mainstream parties were failing and the big industrialists didn't exactly have a bevy of classically liberal yet nationalist parties-in the style of today's GOP-to chose from. Since Hitler busted the trade unions and wanted to revise Versailles, they were quite willing to hold their tongue on other matters.

Source:

Joachim Fest, Hitler.

EDIT:

Volker Ullrich, a recent Hitler biographer, makes the case that the Nazis ended up changing German political culture in more ways than commonly stated: specifically, the war and the social changes caused by the Nazis during and before it made German culture far more egalitarian and more "practically" political and forward thinking. Part of this was indeed caused by "socialistic" Nazi policies that stressed the common "racial/national" good above class differences-Winter Aid, mandatory labor service, etc, that left an indelible imprint on WWII generation Germans that would govern the country in future decades. That these policies were highly nationalistic in nature, as opposed to the internationalism of the SPD, and tolerated if not loved by prominent Wilhelmine conservatives, doesn't change their basic nature.