Throw-away paradox with independent goods
It seems (from the first page, at least; I don't have JSTOR access right now) that the essence of Aumann and Peleg's example is that


  this rise in price of the commodity [trader A] holds is more than enough to compensate for the drop in the amount.


One similar situation from history occurred during the New Deal, when farmers were paid to plough over cotton fields and send hogs to be slaughtered for no reason, in order to take excess quantities of these goods off the market.

Obviously, the difference here is that this was a centralized intervention in a decentralized (and huge) market. The set of incentives are more complicated, and the many "trader A's" in this scenario were compensated for throwing away their goods. But the sentiment is very similar.