Chile

Per Stratfor:

Despite Chile's vulnerability to boom-and-bust cycles, a key factor in its recent stability is its commitment to fiscal responsibility. The Chilean government's resistance to potentially destabilizing moves — particularly those prioritizing major increases in public spending — is enforced by Chilean law. This has not always been the case. As in other Latin American countries, Chile's governments in the 1960s encouraged fiscal deficits, and the efforts to finance those deficits led to high inflation. Chile's economic stability was secured by a fiscal rule instituted in 2000, and later enshrined in law, mandating that the government must attempt each year to secure a structural surplus equal to 1 percent of the gross domestic product.

That requirement significantly curtails the government's capacity to boost populist spending because it must save money in an effort to reach the target. The surplus can then be used to bolster the country's public finances during lean times. It is unlikely that future governments will undo the fiscal rule to, for example, boost public spending. Without a majority in Chile's National Congress, any political party would find changing the law a challenge.

France

Per Stratfor:

Despite its problems, France is still a fundamentally wealthy nation whose global reach knows no rival in continental Europe. Many French companies are leaders worldwide, and the country remains a significant agricultural producer. Furthermore, contemporary French governments still espouse military intervention abroad. Sarkozy and Hollande were willing to protect France's interests in the Levant and sub-Saharan Africa in ways that Britain seems increasingly reluctant to and Germany can't even dream of.

Additionally, France has some of the highest birthrates in Europe and, by midcentury, will probably have the largest population on the Continent. This means that a substantial number of young people will keep entering the workforce each year, pay work-related taxes, sustain the pensions of the elderly, and consume goods and services.

On the other hand, a growing population also means a permanent risk of social unrest if the French economy fails to absorb the future cohorts of workers. Boasting not only the strongest nationalist party but also the largest Muslim community in Western Europe, France will prove a test case for the evolution of nationalism and the role of Muslims in Europe. Though birthrates are falling in France across all segments of the population, Muslim families have higher birthrates relative to non-Muslim families, which means the Muslim community will likely play a greater political and social role in France in the coming years.

What the end looks like...

In the context of the typical question "How can the Fed ever lose control of the bond market, since they can always print more money?", today's Ask Fleck had a submission that probably spells out the answer...

Specifically, there is a quote in the most recent Barron's from Bill Gross:

"Years of easing by central banks mean that interest rates in most of the developed world will fluctuate narrowly. That offers an opportunity to sell volatility to create return. If you bought a 10-year Treasury bond today and nothing changed, you would get a 1.9% yield. If you bought a seven-year German Bund, you’d get zero. If, however, you sold a three-month call or three-month put on that same Treasury with a 20-basis-point [hundredths of a percentage point] variation—in other words, the yield stayed in the range of 1.7%-2.1% for three months—the trade would produce an annual return of 6%, as opposed to 1.9%.

The risk is that interest rates will go up or down by more than 20 basis points over a three-month period. But my premise is that central bankers will do anything possible to contain interest-rate fluctuations. The sale of volatility is producing the predominant amount of return in my fund."

The reader goes on to suggest (reasonably) that if Gross is pursuing this strategy, then plenty of other money managers are as well.  Which leads to his pertinent insight:

"You've been asked over the years how the fed could ever not control the outcome in the bond market (in so many words). After all, can't they just print money and buy bonds? Well, trillions upon trillions of notional bond money, leveraged and selling volatility on top of it? That's how - they will be totally overcome when the time comes as these managers are forced to deal with portfolio problems all at the same time. Again, it's not today's business, treasury bond yield will likely move lower, perhaps much lower, during a nasty equity bear market (see Europe and Japan). But that would likely reinforce this behavior in the bond market of selling vol on leverage. If ever there were a coiled spring the Fed would be unable to deal with this is it..."