There's nothing inherently "cheap" regarding MN's use of a graphite-impregnated insert in their ball joints..
What you've got here is a modern-design ball joint (MN) vs. a ball joint built in the manner/design predating WWII (Moog).
The Moog is two stamped/machined pieces of metal sandwiching a large and poorly-surfaced ball, with no separate bearing, and only three grease channels lubricating the ball. My pops (ex machinist by trade) assumes that the lack of polish on the ball is on purpose so that it will hold grease. A couple of really quick/nasty welds hold the sandwich together, but they're not adequate, it's the eventual fastening of the ball joint to the control arm that actually creates the structural integrity.
The MN is a cast housing, not sure of the right terminology for how the ball is captured, with a plastic bearing (there is NO separate bearing in the Moog, you're just riding inside the sandwiched-steel) with 12 grease channels lubricating a fully-polished ball. The integrity of the joint is not dependent upon the mounting hardware.
I have no scientific data to provide as to which is better, but I'm betting that all of our modern cars are riding on the latter... And my experience has been that modern stuff sure lasts for a long time, we don't have to rebuild suspensions in as short intervals as we did the old days.
And maybe the "racers" have a different take, because what's o.k. for the street doesn't always work best for track.
Anyhow, I have chopped into the inards of both ball joints. It's two totally different approaches at skinning a cat, one ancient and one modern. Modern does not necessarily infer or relate to bad-quality. Engineering and materials have come a long long way, just look how long modern engines can go between rebuilds, with less frequent service intervals to boot.