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