One could end up with the same problem after adopting  
the term 'open markets'. Markets are never fully  
'open', in the sense of being conducted in the absent  
of any underlying rules, standards, etc. What is  
important is not to change terminology, but to put the  
Walrasian notion of pure exchange in its place- as a  
thought experiment and nothing more. Adopting the term  
open trade does nothing if the idea of Walrasian  
competitive equilibrium remains as the central concept  
in modern economic theory. Institutional factors will  
be downplayed or ignored for as long as economists  
continue to think of the Walrasian pure exchange model  
as 'high theory'. Economists who think in terms of  
pure exchange will end up with a mistaken notion of  
efficient trade no matter how it is termed, so long as  
they are educated in Walrasian terms.   
  
Doug Mackenzie