What is Wrong with Hubble Constant?

What is Wrong with Hubble Constant? The Hubble constant measures the rate of the universe's expansion. Sadly, depending on how it is measured, there are multiple answers. The cosmic microwave background, the faint glow left behind from the first light to ever exist, can be used to compute an expansion rate of about 68 km/sec. It's more like 73 km/sec when you consider how stars and galaxies are now moving away from us. The most recent statistics indicate the gap of 5.6 km/sec, which is still a serious issue.The more evidence we have that our calculations are correct, the more likely it is that the discrepancy indicates that our knowledge of the universe is incorrect and that it isn't precisely what we had believed.

[goodusoul]

The problem with Hubble's constant is that people assume that it's constant, and therefore report the standard error. Because there are a million samples, that creates the delusion that the standard deviation is 1000 times more precise than it actually is. As more data is added, you're making the standard error smaller and smaller, by dividing by a larger and larger sample-size, while getting a completely different answer, because of the fact that the more distant galaxies do not fit the assumption that the quantity is constant.

[anderd]

Here is a question. There are zero asumptions in my question. (It may be a good question, it may be a logical question, but simplistic, with known answers, and I am simply not educated in the field.)
Say we observe light from a galaxy 10 Billion light years away.
Are there not NUMEROUS disparate past factors, no longer active NOW, over the 10 billion light years of travel to us, that could have affected the light spectrem we prerceive now?

If, say 9 billion years ago, something (anything, the expansion rate of space, the various gases of another galaxy that is no longer there, etc) was cause to a shift in the spectrum of light from said galaxy, and that causative factor was no longer active, would the light we perceive now not still carry that PAST spectrum shift message, despite the fact that the cause of said shift is no longer affecting the light?

(Say in the first billion years of said light leaving that galaxy space WAS expanding very fast, and that billion years of red shifted light is only reaching us now, would the light still record that past expansion for the next billion years or so of our experience of it?) Is it possible that we are measuring how fast space was expanding over time?

And, if the expansion of space has steadily slowed over our 13.6 biillion years, would not our observational time lapse observation of said red shift, give the perspective of ever increasing expansion as we look ever deeper into the past?

In other words the steady decay of expansion rate over time, would produce the illusion of ever more rapid expansion, the further distance into the past one observed?

It does not appear that the disparate "ladder" measurements of star and galaxy distance overlap, or confirm distance AND recessional velocity. Telling the standard candle brightness does not give red shift, and red shift can only give expansion rate of said light, over the TIME of its journey. Therefore it appears that a steady drop in expansion rate, would produce the hubble constant, and mimic an ever increasing expansion over distance.