Yes, but the principle is the same for how a perpetual deficit can be maintained.
A subsistence farmer can grow enough for themselves. It they make extra each year, they can buy something from outside each year, continually running an import deficit.
No country accumulates external money. The Eurozone ones surely don't, because people mostly don't accumulate money (your bank doesn't hold a lot of it), and the ones that have their own money don't accumulate any impactful amount of reserves because those are expensive.
Im talking about wealth, GDP, capital, and trade. These things are measured in currency, but saying a country is hording a currency.
If country A uses all of its surplus production beyond subsistence to import alcohol from country B, and country B invests all that money on education, infrastructure, and productive capital, you would expect different outcomes.
Country A can humm along with a perpetual trade deficit forever, but there is an opportunity cost.
The entire thread is about currency. From the first post.
If you meant to talk about wealth, real GDP, and real capital, you can... you know... reference those things on your text. Because every single thing upthread is nominal and about money changing hands.
Do you want to know how Portugal can get a positive trade balance (a nominal concept)? They just need to kill tourism and the unbalanced inflow of salary and pensions. Just destroy their natural and cultural attractions and make the place so bad to live that no foreigners will want to go there. Easy.
Which should be considered the normal state for an economy that with growth and production.
The issue is that a negative trade deficits are sustainable, but come directly out of the wealth growth of the importing country.
If you have $2 of value per year, and loose net $1 across the boarder, you never accumulate wealth.