I have long argued that Austrian economics should be developed not as an alternative to the current academic discipline of economics but as a replacement for it. We will know that this goal has been achieved when the modifier “Austrian” is no longer used to designate the economics of Mises and Rothbard and it is called simply “economics.” In the meantime, however, a significant and gratifying movement toward this long-term goal of establishing Austrian economics as the mainstream is occurring as economists of different theoretical persuasions are increasingly using the history of economic thought as a laboratory to advance economic theory. This opens the door to a re-examination of the ideas and doctrines of Austrian economics, old and new. An outstanding example of this is the ongoing debate among contemporary macroeconomists over neo-Wicksellian macroeconomics, as my co-authors, Matt McCaffrey and Carmen-Elena Dorobat, and I illustrate in our article The History of Economic Thought as a Living Laboratory, recently published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics.