A Pattern Has Emerged

🏢 Corporate Support for Hitler's Rise

Financial Backing

Prominent business leaders and industrialists, including those from companies like IG Farben, Krupp, and Siemens, provided substantial financial support to the Nazi Party. This backing helped fund propaganda campaigns and solidify Nazi influence.

Suppression of labor unions

Supporting the Nazis was seen as a way to preserve capitalist interests and suppress labor unions.

Collaboration with the Regime

After Hitler gained power, corporations collaborated with the Nazi government in various ways, including benefiting from rearmament programs, exploiting forced labor, and aligning with Nazi economic policies.

Legitimizing the Regime

By publicly supporting Hitler and participating in Nazi-led economic initiatives, corporations helped legitimize the regime domestically and internationally.

While it's an oversimplification to say that "monopoly capitalism brought Hitler to power," corporate support undeniably helped stabilize and strengthen his regime during its critical early years.

Yes, during the early months of Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, many large investors and politically connected firms actively participated in the German stock market—and their involvement helped stabilize and even boost market performance.

📈 Investor Behavior During Hitler’s Early Rule

Surge in Returns for Nazi-Linked Firms

A study by Ferguson and Voth found that firms with ties to the Nazi Party—either through management or supervisory board connections—experienced significantly higher stock returns between January and March 1933. These companies outperformed unconnected firms by 5% to 8%.

Widespread Corporate Alignment

By 1932, more than half of the listed firms on the Berlin Stock Exchange had close links to the Nazi movement when weighted by market capitalization. This suggests that major investors and industrialists were not only present but actively aligning themselves with the new regime.

Political Connections as Market Value

The market rewarded firms that were seen as politically connected to the Nazis, reflecting investor confidence that these companies would benefit from the regime’s policies and protection.

IPO Activity and Market Development

Although IPO activity was modest during this period, the Berlin Stock Exchange remained a significant financial hub. The broader market did not collapse despite political upheaval, partly due to investor confidence and corporate support.

In short, big investors didn’t just “show up”—they leaned in, betting on the Nazi regime’s stability and favoring firms with political ties. This behavior helped prevent a market panic and contributed to the consolidation of Hitler’s power.

Striking Parallels to Today's US Markets

📊 Political Influence on Markets in 2025

Politically Connected Firms Are Thriving

Just as Nazi-linked firms outperformed in early 1933, today’s market is rewarding companies aligned with current political priorities. For example, firms benefiting from the Trump administration’s tariff policies or immigration restrictions are seeing investor interest due to anticipated regulatory advantages.

Federal Reserve and Political Pressure

The Fed’s recent interest rate cut—executed under intense political pressure—has fueled a rally in growth and tech stocks. This mirrors how early Nazi-era policies reassured investors and stabilized markets.

AI and Infrastructure as Strategic Bets

Investors are pouring money into sectors like artificial intelligence, which are being framed as part of a “new industrial revolution.” This echoes how German firms aligned with Nazi rearmament and infrastructure projects gained favor.

Selective Volatility/Targeted Trade WarsTrade Policy today is being used strategically, with tariffs targeting specific sectors and countries. This has created volatility that benefits domestically focused firms and politically favored industries—similar to how Nazi economic policies rewarded insiders.

Investor Confidence Despite Economic Risks

Even with signs of stagflation and rising gold prices (often a hedge against instability), investors are doubling down on politically connected sectors. This confidence in regime-aligned firms is reminiscent of 1933 Berlin, where investors bet on Nazi stability despite broader uncertainty.

🧯 Regulatory Rollbacks and Transparency Under the Trump Administration (2025)

Environmental Deregulation

The administration has aggressively rolled back climate-focused regulations. It has rescinded funding for green energy projects, eliminated climate research programs, and even moved to revoke the EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health. This foundational rule is what allows the EPA to regulate emissions—its removal would severely limit environmental oversight.

Project 2025 Influence

Much of this agenda aligns with Project 2025, a policy blueprint developed by conservative think tanks. It calls for dismantling federal climate initiatives, defunding scientific research, and prioritizing fossil fuel production over renewable energy.

Rulemaking Loopholes

The Department of Health and Human Services has rescinded the “Richardson Waiver,” which previously encouraged public participation in rulemaking. This change could allow agencies to bypass formal notice-and-comment procedures for certain regulations, reducing public oversight.

So yes—while there are isolated efforts to improve transparency (like in healthcare), the broader trend is toward weakening regulatory frameworks and reducing institutional checks, especially in environmental and scientific domains.

Under the Trump administration in 2025, there’s been a sweeping push to deregulate investments and business activity, with major implications for both domestic and foreign investors.

🏛️ Key Deregulatory Moves in 2025

10-to-1 Deregulation Executive Order

President Trump signed an order requiring federal agencies to eliminate ten existing regulations for every new one introduced. The goal is to ensure that the total cost of regulations in fiscal year 2025 is significantly less than zero, aiming to unleash business growth and reduce compliance burdens.

America First Investment Policy

This policy reshapes how foreign and outbound investments are reviewed:

Fast-track approvals for investments from allied countries.

Reduced use of mitigation agreements by CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.).

New outbound investment restrictions especially targeting sectors like biotechnology, aerospace, advanced manufacturing, and energy—particularly when linked to China.

Real Estate and Farmland Protections

The administration is using CFIUS authority to block investments from “foreign adversaries” in strategic sectors like agriculture and raw materials.

Coal and Energy Deregulation

Federal agencies are slashing regulations to revive the coal industry, opening millions of acres for leasing and investing heavily in retrofitting old coal plants. This is framed as essential to powering AI infrastructure and reindustrialization.

📉 Transparency and Oversight Concerns

While these moves are designed to stimulate investment and reduce red tape, critics argue they weaken transparency and public oversight:

Reduced Rulemaking Participation

Agencies are bypassing traditional notice-and-comment procedures, limiting public input on new rules.

Selective Enforcement

Deregulation is uneven—favoring politically aligned sectors while imposing stricter controls on foreign competitors.

In short, the administration is aggressively reshaping the regulatory landscape to favor politically aligned domestic business and industries, while sidelining environmental and transparency concerns.