There was no economic policy, that's the best way to describe it. Economic historians like Adam Tooze puts Nazi Germany in the capitalist camp, though it's not as straight-forward as that.

Simply put: saying economic policy and Nazi in the same sentence means you're off-track. Marxist worldviews are inherently materialistic: they view the means of production as the wheel that drives history. To a Nazi, this is "vapid Jewish nonsense" as he or she believes that the wheel that drives history is race war. Nazism is a millenarist ideology which believes in a struggle of might that lasts forever.

As such, the economy is a means to an end, as economic reforms are useless for prosperity in the short to medium run, to a Nazi, and the only way to build lasting prosperity is, according to them, the plundering and murdering of as many people as possible. This is why the Nazis would sometimes implement collectivist policies, while also defending the entrenched position of private capital accumulation in key strategic sectors, according to their needs.

Nazism doesn't care about the bureaucratic intricacies of State building. It's the ideology of action.

Quoting Ian Kershaw: "<< [Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest.

But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. >>"