The words “cheap” and “inexpensive are not synonymous [closed]

My question is about correct grammar usage, and asks: Why do people continuously misuse the word “cheap” in the context of monetary cost when this word goes to the quality of a thing, instead of the word >”inexpensive” which goes to >the cost of something?

I went to school in Chipping Barnet, England. It was called Chipping Barnet because it had a long-established market (or cheap), where one might strike bargains. Such bargains, I believe, are the origin of 'cheap', to mean 'bought at a bargain price'. It's evolved to mean inexpensive or, sometimes, inferior. It still doesn't necessarily mean inferior, not in the UK at least. I can say "I bought a really good pair of binoculars – and they were so cheap!", without its being a contradiction in terms. [Used next to the noun (as in "I bought a cheap pair of binoculars.") it's more likely to mean inferior – as well as inexpensive.]

So I agree that 'cheap' and 'inexpensive' are not synonyms, because 'cheap' sometimes has pejorative implications that 'inexpensive' seldom has. It is therefore safer to use 'inexpensive' in cases where 'cheap' may be ambiguous, but the primary meaning of 'cheap' is, I believe, inexpensive, so it's never wrong to use it to mean this.